A Harbinger of Journalism Saved

The NSA Leaks spectacle continues through the Looking Glass of remaking compliance and profiteering as glamorously dangerous defiance, on its way to becoming the Obama ’08 of mass surveillance reform. It continually vindicates everything I write on this blog, while posing no credible threat to the Intelligence Community and its corporate satellites.

And what of those corporate satellites, anyway, many of which are situated in Silicon Valley, where the new patron of improved journalism, Pierre Omidyar, made his $8.5 billion fortune? Does it matter there is but a half-degree of separation between Omidyar and, say, Palantir, the company that aims to be the super-sophisticated Google of the surveillance apparatus, and which at one time co-conspired against Glenn Greenwald, Omidyar’s new partner in rescuing journalism? What does it mean that the Omidyar Network and the CIA’s investment arm, In-Q-Tel (which started Palantir) have investments in common?

What does it mean that new hire Greenwald sits on a trove of secrets that, if they still matter at all, must surely implicate many of Omidyar’s associates and friends, and whose upcoming book based on those secrets promises  “new revelations exposing the extraordinary cooperation of private industry”? Well perhaps Twitter, that most excellent human ant farm for students of power and status, has provided a hint of how this auspicious partnership between the savior of journalism and The 123rd Richest Person in the World might work.

Some people recently expressed concerns to Greenwald about his new partner, on grounds that Omidyar’s Ebay is the parent of PayPal, a company that froze Wikileaks’ account in 2010, under government pressure, for ‘activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.’

To which Greenwald replied,

“he wasnt running the company & i believe spoke out against it, but tell me which mefia [sic] company is ok to work with?”

This is stock Greenwald: the now habitual contempt for anyone asking a question of this kind; an ‘I believe’ which provides weasel room if it turns out what he’s saying is untrue; and an assertion that is technically true but largely meaningless for those who dig a little deeper, which Greenwald knows most people won’t do.

In actual fact, Omidyar was, as he remains, chair of Ebay at the time of the incident, so, no, not running PayPal, but certainly in a position to influence it.  And yes, he did ‘speak out’ if by speaking out you mean taking to the pages of his little Honolulu paper under the auspices of his ‘editorial board’–  wringing his hands a bit over government interference, while fully endorsing PayPal’s acquiescence to that interference, without even a court order having been issued. From the editorial:

The executives [of PayPal and other companies] have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for their shareholders. And if they didn’t respond to government warnings, they very well could risk their own business being shut down.

As speaking out goes, this is the very bare, ass-covering, having-it-both-ways minimum, not least because the 123rd richest person in the world can get his largely symbolic hand-wringing published anywhere, and elected not to.

So what have we learned that might either feed or temper our hopes for the ‘momentous’ new journalism venture we breathlessly await alongside a book, a movie and maybe an HBO series:

1. When it truly mattered, Omidyar, for all his handwringing — as a board chair and advocate of company shareholders — sided with the State against what the State perceived as a threat.

2. Greenwald is showing the same loyalty to Omidyar he showed to the Guardian, a loyalty that endorsed every withheld document and every redaction, and too frequently manifests as evasion and sneering contempt for people asking questions. Here he is once again casting compliance as defiance, the alchemy he embodies lately.

3. Greenwald’s  evasions on behalf of his new boss continue the trend of objectively distancing himself from the less mediated, genuinely disruptive whistleblowing Wikileaks symbolizes, a tendency that started when he and Snowden almost certainly lied about Snowden’s better-than-Manning meticulousness, and continues each time he invokes the ‘dumping’ straw man for various ends.

Sorry folks, but I don’t think this bodes well for the promised renaissance in afflicting the comfortable, but then I’ve never been persuaded to the revolutionary potential of either billionaires or self-serving liberaltarian reformists.  I do hope, however, that when Omidyar seeks access to Greenwald’s precious trove — as he no doubt will — Greenwald’s tendency to hoard at last intersects with the public good.

Whatever the case, viva the new journalism. It’s gonna change everything.

(A hat tip to Arthur Silber, who planted the seeds for this post)

UPDATE

I guess Glenn didn’t like this post. Here he is today (10/19/13), keeping it classy by hee-lariously replying to a parody account. My my —  singling out obscure bloggers for abuse via sycophant-provided straw men. Anti-authoritarian heroes ain’t what they used to be. But having remade leaking as not leaking, he now reinvents anti-authoritarianism along similar lines. It’s fair to see this as a harbinger too. Imagine what Glenn can do with obscure radicals when he’s working for Omidyar. Fight the Brooklyn blogger power, Glenn! Free the Billionaires!

For the record, I still respect Scahill, who, from what I can tell, isn’t a liar, or a bully, does not claim to be saving journalism or toppling the government, does not grossly exaggerate his own risks, and probably would never stoop as low as Greenwald and his idiotic acolytes do now, though Glenn, in his peerlessly shitty way, clearly wishes to drag him in. This is how thin-skinned authoritarians behave when they’re out of arguments.

GG must be overjoyed to have finally found a Tarzie he can win an argument with.

Related

Greenwald Still Covering for Omidyar on PayPal

Viva The New Journalism

A Heat Vampire in Search of a Movie Deal

Edward Snowden’s Incredible Mutating Document Trove

On The Pejorative Use of ‘Dumping’

My Reply to Glenn Greenwald’s Comments on ‘Take Your Drip and Stick It’

Fuck The Guardian: Take Your Drip and Stick It

Fuck The Guardian: Long Live The Independent?

Fuck The Guardian: Part 2

Fuck The Guardian: Part 1

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

140 Responses to A Harbinger of Journalism Saved

  1. AmishRakeFight says:

    “…the Obama 2008 of mass surveillance reform.” – This is the absolute perfect metaphor for this entire spectacle, ever since it started with Greenwald’s first publication from Snowden’s leak. And based on the way things are currently going, I don’t see that comparison becoming outdated in the foreseeable future.
    One thing I’d add (though you, Silber, and others have said it before, so I’m not taking credit for the idea): we’re to believe that Omidyar is interested in partnering with Greenwald to build a new, power-challenging media venture. The 124th richest man in the world is going to challenge the existing power structures? Now why in the hell would he want to do that? He is a member of the ruling class whom the system has served particularly well. And as you noted, when presented with the opportunity in the past, he made it clear which side he wanted to be on.
    Anyone who believes the hype about this is a fool, on par with liberals who actually think Warren Buffet shares their interests and desired policies.
    Shoot me now.

    • Tarzie says:

      Anyone who believes the hype about this is a fool, on par with liberals who actually think Warren Buffet shares their interests and desired policies.

      Yeah this is quite the accomplishment. Did you ever think you’d see the day when anarchists and transparency advocates would be cooing over shit like this? So appropriate that it comes wrapped in the same sneery real-word knowingness the obots bring to their little fantasy. It says two things: 1. people are really fucking credulous AND 2. toxic, grotesque class inequality has been almost completely erased as an object of serious left concern. I am not only struck by how stupid but how crass so much of it is. I am looking forward to when Glenn crashes the gates of Goldman Sachs. People will still be calling me jealous for saying it might not be a good thing.

      I keep writing about this because it really is some new low in the self-eradication of anything remotely left in the middle class and up. A car wreck.

      • AmishRakeFight says:

        “Did you ever think you’d see the day when anarchists and transparency advocates would be cooing over shit like this? It’s amazing.” – This is exactly why I like your Obama 2008 metaphor. I also never thought I’d see the day when self-identified progressives would defend and cheer a president who keeps a kill list and regularly murders people. Unfortunately, another parallel the current situation has with Obama 2008 is how utterly disappointing it is to witness how unprincipled many people are, particularly those who share your beliefs (or at least, you thought they did).
        I encourage you to continue to write about it, even though it seems like every day things just keep getting worse. It’s fascinating to witness, and I try to focus on that – because whenever I step back and face the consequences and implications of all this in the grand scheme of things, it’s unbearably defeating.
        Cheers.

      • Tarzie says:

        There is liberation in defeat. It shows you who and what you can write off so as to focus on other things.

      • Days I've Not Seen says:

        Did you ever think you’d see the day when anarchists and transparency advocates would be cooing over shit like this?

        Maybe you’ve confused people pretending at anarchism and transparency advocacy for those engaged in, or committed to, the real things themselves.

      • Tarzie says:

        Maybe you’ve confused people pretending at anarchism and transparency advocacy for those engaged in, or committed to, the real things themselves.

        Well, I go by what people call themselves. I don’t use these as terms of honor. Does Jacob Applebaum count as a transparency advocate?

    • sounds like a lot of people looking for “power” and claiming to do the right thing. Didn’t Obama get set up by the Chicago mafia just like JFK’s dad did for him before? Nothing clean.

  2. Pingback: Fuck The Guardian: Take Your Drip and Stick It | The Rancid Honeytrap

  3. HuBris says:

    Omidyar’s Ebay is the parent of PayPal, a company that froze Wikileaks’ account in 2010, under government pressure, for ‘activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.’

    OT but since you mentioned poor old persecuted Wikileaks I think this is worth a read . . . . .

    Who Exactly is “Julian Assange”..?

    • Tarzie says:

      OT but since you mentioned poor old persecuted Wikileaks

      Yes, off topic, bordering on derailment and ‘poor old persecuted Wikileaks’ is an irritating way of characterizing the government interference decribed in this post.

      Wikileaks drama and conspiracy theories are not something I think about.

  4. Fumei says:

    I’ve been suspicious of Omidyar’s characterization as a “philanthropist” from the start. The process by which a supposed philanthrope comes to hoard billions in a country where millions roam the streets begging for food and change is indecipherable to me. My gut feeling is that he’s an opportunist eyeing a lightly-tapped market (the Chris Hayes generation of liberals), but I haven’t researched him — the lives of rich people have this tendency to make me taste bile.

    I know you’ve made a lot of enemies for it, but thanks for staying on top of this, Tarzie. This all stinks — how much will be withheld in order to grant the best possible start to this new news venture? Among the few disclosures that GG actually made was the fact that my own government of Canada had been spying on Brasil’s mining and petroleum industries, seemingly at the behest of our (currently extremely powerful and influential) mining and petroleum corps. What else is there to learn about CSEC? When will we learn it? Do we have to wait for Greenwald’s upcoming book? Is he saving it to promote Omidyar’s new pet project? Why is our need to know about secret government wrongdoing being subjugated to GG’s desire for control, wealth and prestige? It all just smells like bullshit.

    You Obama ’08 metaphor is great — there’s a cult of personality that grew around GG and the whole troupe appropriated to itself the space of meaningful, anti-authoritarian resistance towards the State. Blech.

    • Tarzie says:

      I hear you on all points. I don’t get this lack of skepticism at all, particularly with respect to a Silicon Valley billionaire. It just seems so backward.

      I know you’ve made a lot of enemies for it, but thanks for staying on top of this, Tarzie.

      I have also actually made quite a few friends and my blog traffic’s never been higher. People I interact with are different. More varied. I am attracting people who aren’t authoritarian hero worshipers, which is fine by me, and I’ve kissed off a lot of people who weren’t really worth knowing in the end.

  5. Jeff Nguyen says:

    From Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/the-top-5-things-weve-learned-about-the-nsa-thanks-to-edward-snowden/), a summary of things we’ve learned from Snowden and what monumental changes have ensued:

    What we’ve learned:
    American telcos are compelled to routinely hand over metadata to the government
    Digital surveillance programs capture vast amounts of data: PRISM and XKeyscore
    US companies have done little to resist government pressure
    NSA’s sister organization, GCHQ, does what the NSA can’t
    NSA analysts even used capabilities to spy on their exes

    What has happened since:
    As a way to prevent future leaks, the NSA fired nearly all its sysadmins
    Privacy-minded e-mail providers shut themselves down under pressure
    The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opened up and published docket and opinions
    Patriot Act author said that NSA’s interpretation is overbroad
    Congressional reforms introduced, remain slow-moving

    Translation:
    What we’ve learned: Nothing new
    What has happened since: Nothing new

    As Tarzie and Silber have pointed out, this is the biggest nonevent of the year with Greenwald curiously benefitting, i.e., profiting, the most. The worst part is now we have yet another gatekeeper media source to look forward to.

    • Tarzie says:

      That’s a helpful article. That ‘What has happened since’ list is even more meagre than I would have even expected and a lot of its bad. No doubt Greenwald will point to that article with pride. If anything happens, anything at all, he sees it as testimony to the great thing he and his colleagues did. He has benefitted hugely. A friend compared him to The Manchurian Candidate.

      Could you explain what you mean by What we’ve learned: Nothing new? A lot of people have said this, just wondering what it’s based on. Were all of these things already disclosed by other NSA whistleblowers?

      • Jeff Nguyen says:

        My assertion is that Snowden’s disclosures were anything but novel for anyone with a semi-paranoid bone in their body or, more importantly, anyone willing to critically analyze the information that has been disseminated from the corporate media for the past decade. Wired told us of the NSA data center back in March 2012. Heck, James Branford wrote a whole book about the NSA’s spying powers in 2008 (I think), “The Shadow Factory: the Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America.” Snowden just gave us more details that fill in the blanks on what many of us already suspected. As long as Greenwald or the Guardian or WaPo control the information flow, they control the narrative, talk about managed dissent.

        I would add to the list of what has happened since:
        The normalization of spying and state secrets has been even more firmly entrenched.
        Whistleblowers have been put on notice that “what happened to Snowden” could happen to them. (Don’t get me started on Snowden’s connections to Langley from the time he was in high school. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/edward-snowden-background_n_3446904.html) One might say he was groomed for such a time as this…
        The public was effectively distracted during the trial of Manning who received almost zero publicity from the corporate media despite leaking information of war crimes committed by the U.S. military and embarrassing diplomatic cables.
        Another layer of gatekeeping to ensure the fragile American public is kept on it’s “need to know” leash.

        I’ve watched Enemy of the State enough times to know…Edward Snowden, you are no Gene Hackman. All of the above are my not so humble opinion, of course.

      • Tarzie says:

        Gotcha. I probed because I am going to do a more summary-like post and a lot of this is really helpful. I found our discussion and your post from a while ago really useful to my own analysis, especially your remarks on Manning, which really upped my skepticism quotient. I wasn’t won over to your whole theory but I think you got everything right in broad strokes at the very least. This has been a very strange series of events. I am shocked by how credulous people are.

      • Jeff Nguyen says:

        Fair enough, I’m not so sure I’m won over to my whole theory. I do appreciate the critical thinking taking place here and in other corners of the blogosphere. Every person counts and every voice is needed in the struggle.

      • Tarzie says:

        Did you see this quote from Snowden in his recent New York Times interview?

        “So long as there’s broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there’s a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision,” he said. “However, programs that are implemented in secret, out of public oversight, lack that legitimacy, and that’s a problem. It also represents a dangerous normalization of ‘governing in the dark,’ where decisions with enormous public impact occur without any public input.”

      • Jeff Nguyen says:

        No doubt, I used to admire Greenwald. Now, not so much. I didn’t grow up in Stasi East Germany but I imagine discourses like this re: Snowden NY Times interview were taking place as the groundwork was put in place. I was too busy in the 1970’s dodging Monsanto’s charitable contributions to my homeland: http://deconstructingmyths.com/2013/10/05/dear-monsanto-2/ (shameless plug alert).

      • Tarzie says:

        That’s a good piece. Your blog is really interesting. I’ve been grazing it.

      • Jeff Nguyen says:

        Feel free to nosh any time.

  6. dmantis says:

    I will be looking forward to that summary post.

    In keeping with Arthur’s line of reasoning, I can imagine the site launching with the NSA document trove as its crown jewel. It could be as absurd as a heavily redacted version to the point of meaninglessness behind a paywall. That would be the moment of perfect authoritarian evolution. Even whistleblowing is absorbed, vetted and marketed into a comodity to sell.

    • Tarzie says:

      Yeah, I can’t imagine what they are planning, but whatever details the trove holds about Silicon Valley are likely to be heavily filtered. I am starting to think the Snowden trove is mostly a dud. Once you know that you’re being watched a hundred different ways, you get diminishing returns from the details.

  7. Trish says:

    The more this unfolds the more i think this is all theatre. I am not sure what the play is but it is not what we think.

    First, it has been two+ months that Glenn has published anything of substance for US/UK. If he has explosive information, and when it came to GCHQ he said so after the Miranda instant, why has he not written one thing on these two countries. (Let’s not get into his trickle stories for other countries). We have gone from drip, which was bad enough to nada. it possible and reasonable to conclude that he has become so greedy, so in love with power and fame that these instincts have totally overshadowed the desire to get stories out? And if that is not the reason, what then explains why his output has dwindled to zip. heck, he didn’t even bother to explain how this new venture will impact the timetable for new stories. Will he still publish at Guardian till it gets off the ground? Will he publish with other outlets? Not a bloody word on what this means vis a vis the documents he is holding.

    As I think about the above my mind wanders back to Mirandagate and hard drive gate what purpose did they serve. First, AR Shocking confession about hard drives. For me it didn’t pass thie smell test. 1) the UK media is very much in bed with the govt. 2) according to AR the spooks just wanted the drives smashed, which they knew was pointless, but did not ask for the actual information. Which is weird given govt wants access to the information miranda had? So the govt didn’t want information guardian had, just happy to symbolically smash hard drives, but now want access to information miranda was carrying.

    I am not sure how to interpret that but leads me to think. A) the guardian never really had information, or what they had was minimal – that might square with what was said about Glenn keeping docs from Guardian – and uk govt knew that, so didn’t bother to ask. I am also thinking this might be true because if the Guardian had access to documents what would stop them following up with stories, without Glenn? Surely, Glenn would not object to them writing stories while he is in the process of getting his new venture up. IT is all really murkey. B) if the guardian did not have documents then where did the 50,000 given to NYT come from? If the Guardian had these damaging documents why didn”t uk govt slap a court order on guardian to stop them being given to another outlet. think about it after the govt went after miranda, why stop there they could slapped the guardian with injunctions. In fact, wny not do it earlier when the spooks were visiting AR? They could have slapped a D notice. Its very nature can keep the press from talking about it.

    Mirandagate. After AR “run” in with the govt a ticket for miranda is booked to Rio through london. How many times have we been told by Glenn they have taken every precaution. They are so careful. Yet, knowing the UK has no press protection, and already “threatened” AR they decide okay for Miranda to fly home to Rio from Germany, via london.

    Honestly, not sure what to make of it all

    Did the guardian ever have the documents? If not who handed docs to NYT and were there 50,000.

    If the guardian did have docs why didn’t uk govt slap a d notice and get them. Why only did they try to get miranda’s docs?

    If the guardian did share 50, 000 stories with NYT, where are the articles?

    If the guardian still has access to documents why are they not publishing stories even if Glenn has moved on?

    I am not sure what is going on, but think a few things were acheived. Miranda helped to scare everyone, and also make everyone think how brave, how courageous Glenn is. As you said bart at WAPO is publishing without such fanfare and drama.

    Miranda also helped the guardian publish AR spook story, and then use that as a cover to not being able to write about GCHQ. Something Glenn was very vocal about doing after miranda was detained. By moving the GCHQ stories to NYT with the passage of time people forget about it, and thus the UK govt avoids being exposed. And, now with GG moving onto a new venture the passage of time will get kicked even further down the road.

    Something tells me if we knew how much documents there were things might become a lot clearer. Did Snowden hand over 10,000 or 100,000. GG seems to suggest the former and AR after hard drive story the latter.

    my gut tells me the lower number is closer to the truth. pretending they have more documents helps create more fog. If NYT only got several hundred docs, as opposed to 50,000 many would be asking “where the hell are the stories”. What is taking so long?

    IF GG total trove was the lower number when shared among his inner circle, the guardian, and the NYT, what percentage of total documents are “newsworthy” If it is the lower amount then it is likely that the “explosive” stories have already been covered. If that is the case then what’s left in the pile is maybe a few more “big” stories. 1) thing we know about GG is he loves attention. By given the impression he has tons of docs means he can shut down any criticism of his method and why it is taking so long with ” it is complicated, we need to be accurate, there is a lot to digest and understand”.

    2) tons of dcuments means GG can bang on “snowden biggest WB of all time”. All though when the dust settles what have we learned so far? It is not just stuff paranoid people knew, there were articles in various papers covering similar information to what snowden released. The snowden effect was to bring all that information into one moment, one event, so the impact would be felt by many.

    3) Miranda allowed GG even more leeway. look how scary it is. I need to be more careful. In fact, since Miranda his pace of stories in UK/US media has really slowed down? Quite the opposite of what he said after Miranda. I am going to work harder, more hours, to get the information out. I am more motivated then before…

    I am confused. So many things don’t add up. GG has not helped. he has been very vague, and often nasty when questioned as to what is going on.

    Sorry for long post. Hope I didn’t spoil your blog.

    • Goldfish Training Institute says:

      It was pretty surprising that they used MIranda in the first place. Did they honestly believe the spooks wouldn’t be tagging him anywhere he went? Hadn’t Greenwald’s house supposedly already been broken into before the Miranda thing ever happened? Why would you put your husband in supposed harm’s way when you could easily hire somebody to do whatever it was Miranda was supposed to do? And why would the Guardian agree it? Just because Glenn said “let him do it?”

      The Miranda episode really seemed like a Keystone Kops moment. Either that or it was all a staged act to get even more attention drawn to Greenwald or the NSA situation, which is difficult to believe. And then the typical Greenwald meltdown at the airport, he practically threatened to drop a drone on the U.K. after it all happened.

    • dmantis says:

      You are absolutely correct in pointing out that the UK could have established the case for prior restraint rather easily it seems, yet they didn’t go that route. This has bothered me since the Charlie Rose interview. If the publishing of stories was so difficult in the UK as to drive the Guardian to go into “partnership” with the NYT sharing the trove, why did this all happen AFTER the Miranda incident and the smashing of hard drives?

      However, I think the smashing and Miranda incident was mostly for show. The Guardian had already demonstrated their complete willingness to play ball with the authorities. These incidents just gave them the air of the brave and courageous journalists fighting the good fight.

      As far as Glenn is concerned, he may not have actually known the fix was in before the Miranda incident. He seemed pretty angry and said some things that were basically stupid bravado. It just had the air of loosing his cool and reverting to the amatuerish media hack he is.

      However, it has to be assumed he was in contact with his new ‘benefactor’ either during this time or soon after. That in and of itself was enough reason for him to stop publishing. Why allow more stories in conjunction with an outlet your leaving anyway?

      Basically, I think the story is done. Establishment media have made a killing and certain people’s status has been upgraded to first class. Snowden is the lynch pin though. If he ever talks about the document trove itself, what his intepretation of ‘in the public interest’ is, or why he didn’t give the trove to more reporters initially it could finally reveal the truly slimy and self-serving fiasco.

    • Tarzie says:

      Sorry for long post. Hope I didn’t spoil your blog.

      You’re not spoiling anything but I don’t share your interest in all these details, the truth of which we’ll never know.

      For me, what’s important are the ends to which all the stuff out in the open is being put. We have had a long lesson in the proper way to blow whistles (carefully, responsibly) and the proper ends to seek by so doing (debates mediated by elites); we’ve learned how critical journalism is to spoon-feeding dissidence to the rubes; and now we are learning that there is no incompatibility between making deals with various corporate sectors — including the one most deeply entwined with mass surveillance — and being a celebrated dissident. We have also learned just enough about the NSA to be deeply paranoid about it. There is a ‘debate’ going on that clearly will amount to almost nothing except a little bad-appling and a whole lot of ratifying. This is all quite bad enough. I feel no strong need to speculate on the wheels within wheels that brought us here since they are unknowable, water under the bridge, and, for me, anyway, largely beside the point.

  8. “I am starting to think the Snowden trove is mostly a dud.”

    Interesting. There are no documents. In the movies they only put real money in the top layer of the briefcase, covering the newspaper scraps underneath, to make it all look real. The ringer cannot look empty…

    Greenwald’s marginalized followers have marginalized the dissenters among them. The marginalized have been marginalized.

  9. Days I've Not Seen says:

    Does Jacob Applebaum count as a transparency advocate?

    Jacob Applebaum counts as an Applebaum offspring named Jacob, and little more.

    Well, I go by what people call themselves.

    Because nobody ever calls themselves one thing, while behaving pretty consistently as its opposite.

    • Tarzie says:

      Because nobody ever calls themselves one thing, while behaving pretty consistently as its opposite.

      Of course, they do. How very well observed! I just do not use these as terms of honor the way that you do, in part because I do not feel equipped to arbiter in this way. I also don’t find it useful when talking about he disconnect between what they say they are and how they behave, as I believe I made plain. But splitting hairs over this shit is my absolute favorite thing, so please do continue!

  10. Radostdg says:

    > keeping it classy by hee-lariously replying to a parody account…

    This, from the rube who attempted to engage @RepublicanDalek for several antagonistic tweets before grasping PARODY (now *that was hee-larious), and is hell-bent on inspiring a new generation of ridicule-tweets in his whiny direction. You’re either a discount version of Cointelpro 2013 (Park Slope Edition) or a blogging Clown Car. Either way, please don’t ever change, the projection & hypocrisy are priceless.

    Oh pot, how I love thee.
    – Kettle

    • Tarzie says:

      Having been an RD follower in the past I am well aware of RDs gimmicky schtick. Which is beside the point, because what we were talking about was a smear, which RD was parroting, not parodying. And my tweets were no more antagonistic than RDs, in fact they were less. This is one of the many ways in which you trolls are so repellently dim: you dedicate entire days and entire Twitter accounts to smearing and trolling me and then oh-so-witheringly observe that I don’t bring my best manners on the rare occasions when we engage. There is no arrogance like a dumb mob. There is also no equivalent stupidity. Between your infantile, Belieber-like dedication to Greenwald, and the idiotic things you say and do on his behalf, you have absolutely no idea how revoltingly stupid you look.

      Like accusing me of being in Cointelpro, for instance, is so stupid it defies belief. Yeah, my Fort Meade colleagues and I must stop the radical Greenwald menace, because guys with book, movie and startup deals with tech billionaires are such a threat to the The System. How much more gatecrashing can The System take! Stop him before he makes a deal with Goldman Sachs and brings down everything!!!

      If paranoia is your thing, maybe you should consider the people who work all day authenticating Greenwald’s leak-hoarding and deal-making as Fighting the Surveillance State, on the quaint premise that he poses any threat greater than being a bigger asshole than Bob Woodward in five years.

      If you guys ever rub two brain cells together, it might occur to you that living parodies of everything I loathe aren’t the people I listen to. All this for some rich white dude who goes psycho — pitiably — when one person fails to see the sun shining from his ass. That you think you’re fighting power by unleashing your fury on an obscure blogger for a pathologically petty media celebrity would be funny if it weren’t so repulsive. You should be embarrassed for yourselves once your little troll fever wears off, but you’re obviously too fucking stupid for that.

      Still, I will admit, ‘Pot/Kettle’ that is some devastating shit, for sure. I’m gonna mend my ways pronto, asshole, because I respect you so goddamn much.

      • Jay says:

        Yeah… idolatry is fucking weird. Responding with substance free personal attacks to criticisms of yourself is one thing…. but for this Radostdg to do so on behalf of someone else, that’s just really fucking creepy.

        That WaPO article/PR release for the NSA does not speak well for Glenn’s approach to this whole thing.

  11. Trish says:

    Sorry for the long post. Guess just boogles the mind. 1)Either most of docs GG has are duds, and he is must milking it. 2) GG is sitting on a trove of information, and he is not only milking it for money, and fame, but has become more of a control freak than NSA.

    I am just having a hard term believing that once GG was given a chance, all the stuff he wrote about and believed in were tosssed out of the window, and he became a money grabbing, fame seeking, control freak. I guess this can happen, but it just seems in stark contrast to GG before Snowden.

    Just such a let down

    • Tarzie says:

      It is a let down, but this how the system works. It preys on the ease with which people can equate their own interest with the common good. GG has been shown a red carpet that would be easy for most people to walk. But to be honest I don’t know what Glenn ever really believed in his heart. People project a lot onto him that I don’t think is really there.

  12. Nell says:

    Thanks very much for the pointer to Chris Floyd’s post; one of his best ever.

  13. Hieroglyph says:

    My timing has been good. I wandered into this blog only a few week ago, and had been minded to (generally) defend Greenwald. Let’s face it, the usual suspects will smear and defame Greenwald, and a few bloggers will join in the fun – from both ‘the left’ and ‘the right’ – but Greenwald has for several years been one of the very few journalists doing excellent work on privacy and civil liberties issues, and most of these bloggers have not.

    However, in the last few days, Greenwald has made Tarzies point for him, and somewhat eloquently, too. The base treachery involved in ditching The Guardian for Next Huffington Post (NHP) dollar is really quite something. He’s been with The Guardian all of one year, has been given everything he asked, and backed to the hilt, legally and editorially – and then the fine scent of NHP dollar reaches his nostrils, and he’s off, doubtless taking his trove with him. I bet that The Guardian is spitting blood, and the fall out – predicted by Assange, btw – will be rather unpleasant. After all The NHP will be a rival to The Guardian, especially in the US.

    In fairness to Greenwald he may be genuine in his belief that this is a great opportunity (it’s not though). And I suppose he is technically correct when he says he doesn’t work for The Guardian (he does though). But he can, with respect, hardly complain that a few people are raising eyebrows (he will though). I guess, being kind, this is perhaps a good example of Euroweenyism, on my part (I post from Oz, but hail from Euroweeny). I sorta have a vague belief that writers – though entitled to earn a living, pay the bills, and have a decent retirement – are not really people who should be chasing the big bucks. But I guess in America this kind of attitude is deemed kinda … socialist, and perhaps menacing, and probably hints at some sort of mental disorder. The US, it’s like a Foreign Country, to me.

    Also, I use brackets too much.

    • Tarzie says:

      You’ve got this all backwards. ‘Usual suspects’ is nonsense. Most of the people criticizing Greenwald from the left are former long-time admirers. Dismissing them all as you have on the grounds that Greenwald has done some good journalism does not answer their current objections.

      I am no fan of Greenwald at this point, obviously, but to say he owes the Guardian anything is just silly. Every employer will use and dump any employee when it suits them. Employees should be at liberty to do likewise. If US employees feel less loyalty to their employers than Europeans it is to our credit, though I don’t believe this is true. I am, however, sympathetic to your misgivings about writers chasing the big bucks, to the extent that, for journalists, anyway, doing so creates conflicts of interest, increased identification with the comfortable, and less identification with the afflicted. It’s typical of this shitshow that most people completely overlook the potential conflict of interest between Glenn’s work on the NSA and his new partnership with Silicon Valley.

  14. Rob Schneider says:

    Sorry if this is old, (for the sake of my sanity and intelligence, I have to take a few days off in rather regular intervals) but I just read Risen’s piece in the NY Times of Snowden’s interview. I found this single sentence quite enlightening:

    “Mr. Snowden said he gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow, and did not keep any copies for himself. He did not take the files to Russia “because it wouldn’t serve the public interest,” he said.

    What I found interesting in the interview was the fact that it doesn’t seem to have been important to Risen to ask Snowden what he thought of the ongoing impact of is acts in regard to goals, or what Snowden thought of the media circus in regard to his (Snowden’s) intentions. Maybe Risen asked, and those answers weren’t published. Either way, the interview was a fluff piece from another journalist who might stand a bit taller than the crowd.

    What does that say about Greenwald’s place in all this? Risen, at least, can be forgiven as a Times insider who has paid his dues and allowed to pad his reputation a bit more. Just what does that say about Greenwald’s motives concerning himself and the documents? Just who is vetting the whatever number of documents that one believes are in existence? Did Snowden have the time to do that before he split, or the short time afterward? I won’t accuse anyone or any organization of anything in particular, but there’s or savior here, in any way, shape, or form, and without complete transparency from any of those involved, their ‘revelations’ must be taken with more than a grain of heavily iodized salt.

    Tarzie, while you’re not the only one grating on this, I personally appreciate your attention. Shitshow is right. And the sad fact is that the public has learned nothing revelational and has only found more cynicism to add weight to its general apathy. Too bad you can’t get a chance at an interview.

    • Tarzie says:

      Yeah, I found that interview extremely weird, particularly Snowden’s remark to the effect that the secrecy is worse than the surveillance. That the important thing is that it be debated, whether that debate ends in ratification or not.

      Snowden, by most accounts, is quite happy with everyone involved and with the results that have been achieved. Greenwald and his gang take this all as some kind of authoritative seal of approval. But just because someone leaks, doesn’t mean they necessarily have the best ideas about strategy or objectives. I think that if the goal here has been something other than teaching rubes lessons in proper whistleblowing, acclimating them to the fact that they are under one hundred different kinds of surveillance that aren’t going away and making Greenwald a wealthy and celebrated investigative-ish journalism performer, it’s been a complete bust.

  15. Hieroglyph says:

    “Dismissing them all as you have on the grounds that Greenwald has done some good journalism does not answer their current objections.”

    Ah, as to ‘dismissing them all’, that certainly wasn’t my intent. I agree with your point, as it goes. By ‘The Usual Suspects’ I mean of course the paid trolls, the ideological types, the idiots. But of course some of his critics have valid points to make.

    I do continue to query your other point about Greenwald ‘owing’ The Guardian. Maybe that’s just how it works in media-land, but it does seem curious, to this poster – and I bet it also seems curious, to say the least, to everyone at The Guardian. They employ Greenwald, he gets the scoop of the decade, then leaves as soon as humanly possible. Is that really not deemed slightly … odd behaviour? I don’t work in media land, so perhaps it is indeed normal, but I’d love to ask Rustybridger about it …

    • Tarzie says:

      It just seems like business to me. In my experience most workers show far more allegiance to their employers than their employers show them. I can’t see regarding the relationship as anything more than symbiosis and I respect workers who operate in that vein. Ambitious people are going to bail when what they regard as the job of a lifetime comes along.

      I think you are on firmer ground when looking at the conflict that wealth and various allegiances produce for writers specifically. I find Glenn’s temptation to make the deals he’s making perfectly understandable. What I won’t concede is that these deals don’t affect his custodianship of the leaks or his effectiveness as an investigative journalist.

  16. diane says:

    as to that Palantir conspiring (the Team Themis connection), …young Barett Brown is still rotting in jail (last I read) and I don’t recollect CATO fond Glenn ever mentioning Barret [yup, weirder and weirder] …not to mention Snowden being a young and naive Ron Paul [Thiel funded] fan.

    (and that was too sickneningly hilarious about Ron Paul! LIBERTARIAN! Privacy Protector! being funded by Ma$ter Palantir/FaceFiend/[Digitally]Pay[Fiend]Pal )

    • Tarzie says:

      young Barett Brown is still rotting in jail (last I read) and I don’t recollect CATO fond Glenn ever mentioning Barret

      Actually that’s not true. Prior to Snowden laying a Golden Egg in his lap, Glenn was pretty dedicated to people like Brown and I think still attempts to help by raising money and other means. Here is Glenn on B. Brown in March.

      Allusions to Glenn’s involvement in Cato are also not nutritious. Glenn is not a libertarian. That he occasionally finds common ground with other political tendencies is to his credit.

      I love you Diane, but I don’t like fact-light beatdowns even when aimed at people I have grown to dislike. Our main concern here is Greenwald’s custodianship of the leaks and his new Silicon Valley friend. Let’s keep it factual.

      • diane says:

        hadn’t read the March piece by Glenn, my apologies (and do have to say I’ve been spending the last three years at least, highlighting what I thought were Glenn’s wonderful qualities wherever I was posting comments) .

        As to Glenn is not a Libertarian, I have yet to read about any independent of a male $$$$$$ provider, biological females who proclaim themselves to be one so that word is very murky to me can you provide a definition for me?

        No, Google and it’s Billionaire Founders and VIP’s, is not actually my friend.

      • Tarzie says:

        No, Google and it’s Billionaire Founders and VIP’s, is not actually my friend.

        Ok then Duck Duck Go is your friend.

      • Tarzie says:

        can you provide a definition for me?

        It is easier to say who’s not. Glenn has answered this question persuasively in my view, mainly by referencing his support for government social programs. This is off topic and honestly nothing annoys me more these days than talk of the Great Libertarian Conspiracy. A friendly thanks in advance for not obliging me one more time to defend Glenn against off topic smears.

      • diane says:

        no, Duck Duck go go is not my friend either (oops that your comment has disappeared, along with mine?), I use Ixquick, and don’t trust them as far I as I could throw them.

        anyway, I support much of what you’re saying …. but I’ll disappear now as I’m not fond of commenting somewhere where someone edits their comments to respond to one of my later comments, but I’m not able to update, or edit, anything.

      • Tarzie says:

        Oh relax. I was trying to soften the comment about your derailing Greenwald smears, but now I’m sorry I bothered.

        UPDATE FOR DIANE

        Hey, I’m sorry for giving offense. Not going to argue more about it. Hope you’ll come back. I like your insights. Just found myself swatting too many derailments the last time and was getting frustrated. Being punished for trying to say it nicer via an edit was kinda the last straw.

    • diane says:

      hang in there ‘tarzie,’ …you are loved (and understood, as regards the stench going on), and you deserve that love.

    • Tarzie says:

      (and that was too sickneningly hilarious about Ron Paul! LIBERTARIAN! Privacy Protector! being funded by Ma$ter Palantir/FaceFiend/[Digitally]Pay[Fiend]Pal )

      Who are you talking about here? Thiel?

      • diane says:

        Yes I was talking about that focker Thiel, who is now apparently funding that Rethuglican,(whose name currently escapes me, who is pretending him and the Obombster are at odds as to thoroughly sealing the coffin on ‘the poor,’ but now fucking anyone who is not a millionaire. )

  17. Trish says:

    Curious who beside laura, GG and Ewan from guardian met with snowden in HK? GG on his twitter when asked about S comment he gave everything to journalists in HK, said other jouranilsts met with snowden in HK, and stands by his initial statement that he and Laura have the same docs and about 10k.

    what journalist met snowden in HK and got given the 50, 000 docs the Guardian gave to NYT? bart in an interview said only three journalists got docs, and a quick search is not bringing up any other jornalists meeting with Snowden beside the ones we know about. If that is the case then according to GG twitter somebody is lying about 50, 000 docs

    As you know there is a dispute between Bart and GG about who was in contact with snowden first. but in any event, both connected to snowden through Laura, and both were in contact by mid march. bart says snowden went to GG because bart would not promise to publish all the slides, and that snowden thought he was taking to long to get the information out. according to GG, Snowden wanted the docs heavily vetted, didn’t want to pull a “manning”. Reason I bring this up is that according to both Bart and GG most of the slides are too DANGEROUS to publish. So how does that square with GG version of snowden that he had heavily vetted the documents, and he was happy with the drip, drip.

    The whole thing is full of holes. Who did Snowden give 50,000 docs. If one believes GG recent tweets, one could conclude that no such documents were handed over. If so, who is lying? Why are they lying? 2). If they are lying it means any stories on GCHQ are in the docs, which snowden gave to laura,and GG and bart have copies of. If that is true then why has GG not written about GCHQ. Why is he going along pretending that NYT has 50,000 documents.

    Beginning to think Snowden’s recent comment in NYT which you posted here rings more true. the point of this was to inform the public and thus have implied consent. As I have said before, I gind it really odd that from what we have seen so far, GG only has documents showing what NSA are capable of, but has no documents showing them “using” this ability, and “abusing”

    • Tarzie says:

      When you talk about GGs recent tweets, could you quote or paraphrase? Is GG now denying there is a large trove of the size the New York Times said it has? Isn’t it possible that Greenwald and Snowden are now trying to cover for the NYTimes blurting out something that is at odds with their shitty anti-Manning narrative? If I had to guess I’d say that the whole thing was given to Poitras and Greenwald, that it included the GCHQ docs and that they lied to make their stupid anti-Manning bullshit stick. This explanation seems to require less in the way of completely speculative additional information than anything else.

      why has GG not written about GCHQ.

      He has written about the GCHQ. There’s this one and a I think some others.

      I am really missing whatever alternative theory it is you’re hinting at. Why do you find the smaller trove story so much more credible? Because Greenwald said it and we know that he never ever never lies? Also, is he now saying 10,000 again? Because he told the Brazilian Senate 20,000 in August. Poor man needs sleep.

      • Trish says:

        I will find the tweets. But in short GG is asked about snowden’s comment in NYT that he gave all the documents to journalists in HK. GG responds that he and laura have the same documents and it is in 10k to 20k range. I will check the exact number. He is then asked about 50, 000 given to NYT. While he does not respond directly to this he says snowden said he gave ALL documents to journalists in HK, and that there were other journalists in HK. He tells the person to google who were the other journalist in HK. I did it was a quick search, but only other name I got was Ewan from the Guardian, who was there with GG and Laura.

        So my question is who is the mysterious journalist who got the 50,000 documents? Why did they give them to the Guardian? I just googled again and found this article that says the only people who met with Snowden in HK were lawyers, people from wikileaks, GG and Laura. http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/was-nsa-leaker-snowden-really-in-hong-kong/

        Let’s say GG was given 20k documents in HK. Where did the 50k come from that Guardian gave to NYT. Someone or many people are lying. Why?

        Yes, GG reported on GCHQ, but we have all been led to believe that was just the beginning and NYT thanks to the Guardian had massive, incredibly damaging stories on GCHQ

      • Tarzie says:

        I didn’t mean for you to hunt down the tweets. I just want to know what tweets generally say when you refer to them.

  18. Trish says:

    Not sure if ou read this, but though this guys observations about GG were spot on, and match what you have pointed out here.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-anti-glenn-greenwald-totally-161425867.html

    • Tarzie says:

      Oh God, not that asshole. He may be right when he talks about how unimportant most of Greenwald’s disclosures are and how much he lies, but I don’t see much there otherwise. In ever other area, he’s an even bigger dick than Greenwald — a NatSec hack — and wrong about everything else. The idea that Greenwald is out to destroy the intelligence community is idiotic. It’s a shame most of the flack is coming from the right, because he deserves it from the left even more.

  19. Trish says:

    On a mobile but here is GG tweet and you can follow there what he is repsponding to. But basically GG says he stand by what he says re the volume of documents he has. So who hot the 50k

    @trh_HF No – all docs “to the journalists” does not mean “all docs to me” – there were other journalists he met with in HK besides me
    1:56pm – 19 Oct 13

  20. Trish says:

    I guess I am just trying to understand where the guardian got the documents in gave to NYT. If not from GG then whom? i think it was you that posted that Guardian said they gave 50k to NYT.

    One more odd thing. If snowden gave GG and Laura the same documents, which GG claims then what was Miranda carrying? Why would Miranda need to carry documents that Laura and GG both have?

    i need to stop posting and messing up your blog. just seems so many people are not being truthful, over really small insignificant stuff such as roughly how many documents did snowden hand over, and to whom.

    • Tarzie says:

      From the looks of things, the most likely conclusion, other than that GG is simply lying — always, ALWAYS a possibility — is that the Guardian got the GCHQ docs by way of Ewan McAskill.

      so many people are not being truthful, over really small insignificant stuff such as roughly how many documents did snowden hand over, and to whom.

      Yes, true. When you unravel this mystery, what do you expect to be left with that we don’t already know in broad strokes?

      • Trish says:

        Maybe, although odd. As according to Ewan he only met Snowden when he accompanied GG and Laura in HK. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-profile

        So why would snowden give him 50k of documents and give 20k, more or less, of the same documents to GG and Laura, who were his contacts, who he had been working with, and trusted. At the very least he would have also given the 50k to GG and Laura and given copies to ewan. Think about it. You are my contact, and then we meet, and you show up with someone I have never met. I have about 70k of documents, and give you 20k and hand over 50k to a stranger, without at least making sure you have copies, so if the stranger does not follow through, I can fell somwhat assured knowing you have everything.

        And, if Laura and GG have the same documents, and GG has confirmed this many times what documents was Miranda carrying either to Laura from GG or vis versus. Why would he be travelling with copies.

        I know this is small stuff, but in My experience when you lie or are murky about what seems to be so insignificant then you have to wonder what else is being covered up.

      • Tarzie says:

        All of your wondering right now is predicated on Greenwald telling the truth upon being criticized for lying about Snowden’s un-Manning-like meticulousness. There is also the matter of a court case involving his husband, accused by British Authorities of carrying a document trove unmistakably like the one the New York Times says it got from The Guardian.

        Why, at this juncture, is it so very hard for you to believe that the asshole is simply lying? ‘Google it’ he says, instead of just coming out with the answer. Maybe there isn’t an answer. Those questions about the trove size, that GG answered, and about which you are now doing so much wondering, hung out in the Twitter ether for days, until GG decided to have one of his periodic meltdowns on radicals and got suddenly talkative.

        This thing is what it is, with or without some evil conspiracy. It’s a fraud now, a spectacle, a platform for indoctrination, and for making a thoroughly toxic gatekeeper extremely successful and influential — in short, a better gatekeeper — no matter how it began. It’s bullshit. Right now. Right out in the open. Just as it is. If you’re going to keep at the sleuthing, can I recommend starting with a more sturdy premise than something GG said? If you want to do some useful dots-connecting, can I recommend Omidyar with the surveillance establishment by way of Silicon Valley? No one’s looking at that, which means someone probably should.

  21. Trish says:

    I am fully aware of the Silicon Valley surveillance state. I think in one of your earlier posts I even showed how the same VC’s fund facebook etc, and get funding from DOD, NSA for their other companies. In effect, one would not be shocked that the taxpayer through DOD, via a VC fund actually funded Goggle etc.

    with GG, until the Snowden episode, I thought he was fighting the good fight. His lies, half truths, murky responses took me by surprise. I don’t believe Snowden gave 50k of documents to a total stranger from the Guardian. So what did the Guardian hand over to NYT, and where did they get them? Do they even exist.

    yes, you are right what we have now is even a better gatekeeper, and maybe that was the purpose all along.

    • Tarzie says:

      I am fully aware of the Silicon Valley surveillance state.

      I know that, which is why there might be profit in turning your sleuthing instincts on just how tight Omidyar is with people getting fat on Big Data, and who have secrets they’d like to keep. I’d like to know who the big NSA players are in the sector and how close he is to them. Palantir is as big and scary as it gets and he is only one degree separated. Why does no one find this interesting, I ask myself, again and again.

      with GG, until the Snowden episode, I thought he was fighting the good fight.

      Yeah, so did I, and might have continued to give him the benefit of the doubt had he not become everything he says he opposes practically overnight. I think he makes the MSNBC crew look almost lovable. I also think he is quite twisted, the way he becomes nastier with critics the more successful he becomes. Megalomaniacal.

      As generally unprofitable as I sometimes find the kind of speculating you’re doing, you have raised some interesting questions. Until you mentioned it, I never really thought about Miranda muling files between Poitras and Greenwald that they both claim to have. What all of this demonstrates is how unquestioning the press is, even his ostensible adversaries, the so-called lapdogs. No one has really asked any hard questions about the weirdness of all of that, and I am including Rusbridger’s weirdness as part of the package. When he’s strangling Jeffrey Toobin with his own colon, why doesn’t Toobin ask, ‘Why on earth was your husband muling those files anyway considering…?’

      yes, you are right what we have now is even a better gatekeeper, and maybe that was the purpose all along.

      If that wasn’t the purpose, that is certainly what it has been shaped into along with a whole lot of other poison. The whole thing just stinks. Really really stinks. Scary stinky.

  22. Jenkley says:

    This one-time “NSA surveillance” story has really turned into a “Snowden/Greenwald” story, and I bet that with a bit of research, you’d find a hell of lot more stories on those 2 and their human dramas than new content on NSA mass surveillance. But a lot of journalists naturally relish that kind of fame, and in fact I remember seeing an interview with Glenn talking about how Bob Woodward (another “championed” journalist) was a hero of his.

    But I think what these ego-minded journalists don’t realize is that their “pulitzer” prize stories that they “break” have absolutely nothing to do with them. It’s always about the content. And in this case (as in most), that content fell into Glenn’s lap, because a colleague of his told him that, hey, you might want to respond to this encrypted email.

    And if you realize that the content that Glenn has actually produced is a drop in the big bucket of the total content he possesses (hell the total content is apparently enough to launch a new media empire), you see that sharing these documents with large numbers of people who can understand, analyze and produce many stories and publish their supporting documents, will produce truly “pulitzer” content.

    Who cares who possesses the documents, who’s writing the stories, it’s the content that’s important. And right now, the world has very little of it thanks to this old-guard, mediated, “responsible”, and as you’ve so eloquently put it, monopolized, whistle-blowing format.

    • Tarzie says:

      I agree completely on all points. Very well put.

    • AmishRakeFight says:

      “Who cares who possesses the documents, who’s writing the stories, it’s the content that’s important. And right now, the world has very little of it thanks to this old-guard, mediated, “responsible”, and as you’ve so eloquently put it, monopolized, whistle-blowing format.” – This has been the driving force that has turned me from a Greenwald admirer into a harsh critic (though there are many other factors, but I’m sure folks around here are well aware of them, so I won’t repeat them). It is obviously in the public interest to have wider dissemination of the information Greenwald possesses. It is also obvious that he is leveraging and withholding this critical information for his own interests. In other words, publishing information in the public interest is not a top priority for him. And this is the criticism that Greenwald has refused to honestly address.

      • Romancing the Loan says:

        Another former Greenwald fan here – it used to be it was hard to find the stuff he wrote about anywhere else. Although, looking back, he’d always had a bit of a fondness for self-promotion (buy my most important book ever!!11!) and an occasional disturbing tendency towards vicious but insubstantive personal attacks on people he really didn’t like (Adrian Lamo.) And in contrast to most civil liberties bloggers, he had some elite credentials (fancy law firm etc.)

        This whole episode has painted his less attractive qualities in bright neon, and now I think the security establishment could not have asked for a more perfect tool if they’d grown him in a vat.

      • Tarzie says:

        If there is one person who deserves insubstantive personal attacks it’s Adrian Lamo, but I get your drift. It’s actually possible to attack a loathsome person substantively; in fact it’s easy if they’re really loathsome. But that’s not what he does. Having gotten on the receiving end of this bullshit, I was actually stunned by how vapid and childish he is, reciting litanies of stock fallacies and insults. He’s a total lightweight for anyone who sees arguments as something other than finding 20 uninteresting ways to say ‘You’re stupid’ and ‘Shut up.’ But the fanserfs eat that shit up. They think it’s pure brilliance.

        I think the security establishment could not have asked for a more perfect tool if they’d grown him in a vat.

        I completely agree. Can you imagine anyone else mediating such an abjectly subservient whistleblowing event — complete with endless civics lessons in safe whistleblowing — with the same level of left credibility? He’s Bill Keller for leftier rubes, except Keller was a complete amateur at cashing in by comparison and probably didn’t talk quite as much about the indispensable role of the heroic mainstream journalist.

    • A former here, too. Speaking of Woodward, I think Glenn is a former fan himself. When Bob was furious that Obama would take one war plane of a carrier in the Persian Gulf, it was obviously a bit of a disappointment.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bob-woodward-obama-military-sequester

    • Jay29 says:

      Good observations but Glenn didn’t call Bob Woodward a hero, he thrashed him quite mercilessly here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bob-woodward-obama-military-sequester – There are more than enough credible criticisms, no need to add that one.

      • Tarzie says:

        Just because Glenn ‘thrashed someone quite mercilessly’, doesn’t mean he didn’t at one time admire them. Here, for instance, is Glenn defending President Bush’s good name from Latin American ‘left-wing fanatics’ pursuant to disputing the media’s claim that everyone in the region hated Dear Leader. He even gets in digs at Cindy Sheehan and the ‘national character’ of Venezuelans. It’s quite entertaining. I would say that anyone this shitty at 38 is shitty for life, but certainly his brand, er, views, have changed. No doubt his views have evolved on Woodward.

        Also inferring from remarks that someone once regarded Woodward as a hero, as @Jenkley did, is not the same as saying someone ‘called’ Woodward a hero, so that’s another non-starter.

      • Jay29 says:

        Wow – Glenn really was quite repellant back then. Staunchly defending the Iraq war… in late 2005! Since Jenkley referred to “seeing” an interview, I inferred it was relatively recent since that’s the only time we’ve seen the man (visually, on tv) doing interviews…. but maybe he meant ‘seen’ as in read, I could certainly see that 2005 version of Glenn regarding him as/calling him a personal hero. (Though I’m pretty sure few thought he warranted being an interview back then.)

      • Tarzie says:

        Yeah, it’s a piece of work. Jaw-droppingly bad. And he audaciously insists now that he was never an active supporter of the war.

  23. Trish says:

    Just read Arthur’s post on Cohen’s about face. brilliant. A link to it should be put on GG twitter, and maybe, just maybe the light might go on that so far he has been a useful idiot.

    One can only hope.

  24. diane says:

    it’s okay honey (I am not being sarcastic), …… I understand, and I really do need to step away for a while anyway (If I am able, as I am addicted to responding to all of the horrified human voices on the internet, while those I love the most, and my, entire life, have near fallen apart in the face of the Fascist [does not even begin to describe it] Technocrat SINGULARITY [1] BOT “Meritocracy”).

    (I do mean what I stated on your about page, if I find that you and your sweety are in the area)

    [1] Singularity University
    NASA Research Park Building
    20 S. Akron Rd.
    MS 20-1 Moffett [MILITARY AIR] Field
    CA 94035-0001

    • Tarzie says:

      Thanks, Diane.

      Good luck with stepping away, though I will miss your voice around here. If you lapse, give us a shout. I promise not to edit my comments.

      Should I delete this? Asking because I like it. There is also the option of removing your address if you’d like.

      • diane says:

        breathtaking hug to you dear, If I do post anywhere into the future, it will be here as far as I can see into the future.

        …. by the by, I had posted that Singularity Insitute adress on another wordpress site recently. …it has, since, disappeared (despite not being deleted there for at least a week or so while other new posts posted) and since I have no meaning of discerning why it did, I won’t fault the person whose website it is (though I do have screen pics …. as, so sadly, ya never know when someone has sold out …..I don’t, at all, get sell out from you, that’s why I landed here).

    • diane says:

      oops, should have responded to the rest, I’m okay with whatever you are comfortable doing with the above posts,

      .. Lastly,..though the fockers likely already have access to what they want to know …. anything you can erase as to tracking me , would be sweet . As to my email addy that I used, it’s bogus anyway (as I tried to make clear in its address and my IP adress is floating, as I use dial up (until ATT & Verizon manage to destroy Land Lines, which would really seal the coffin for so many millions of poverty ridden in the U$).

      • Tarzie says:

        Gotcha. I hadn’t looked at the particulars of the address before asking. I’ll leave everything up.

        As for the rest, I don’t think you left any tracks that I have any discretion over.

      • diane says:

        (I’m also comfortable with you leaving my last post as is, honey. As long as my comments aren’t edited without being noted that they have been, I’m fine with it dear.)

      • Tarzie says:

        All right. The only edits I do on people’s comments are typos because I figure they’d want ’em. (Except for vile trolls, who I edit punitively)

    • diane says:

      (correction, I went back and double checked and the Singularity address has not been wiped, I found it on a post I hadn’t thought I noted it on. Yeah, shamefaced and sorry for that intrigue, and glad I didn’t disparage the person whose site it is, as I’ve always appreciated the site.)

  25. LorenzoStDuBois says:

    I have liked you’re writing in the past, OT, but I’m not sure I do anymore. I’m not sure how I feel about this whole thing, but at least I can thank you for giving me an inside perspective on how Obama loyalists feel. As in, nobody’s perfect, and I’m sure as hell glad Glenn is out there. Sorry to not be one of these people here who agrees with you about everything.

    I just wish you would spend less time talking about who or what you hated and more talking about what people should do instead. Keep it up though, I guess.

    • Tarzie says:

      at least I can thank you for giving me an inside perspective on how Obama loyalists feel.

      See, my work is not wholly in vein, then. But you seem to have extracted the exact wrong lesson, as demonstrated by this:

      I just wish you would spend less time talking about who or what you hated and more talking about what people should do instead.

      Would you like fries with that, cause it’s all about you. Actually, it’s not about you at all. See my FAQ.

      What should people do? One thing I want is for people to be less childish and egotistical than what is encapsulated by ‘I like Glenn. Nobody’s perfect. Write something else.’ I would like someone like you, for instance, to engage as an interesting, informed adult, by telling me what I got wrong, exactly, perhaps inducing me to admit my error and write something else, instead of inducing me to just write him off as a creep.

      Do you require all analytical/critical types like me to propose remedies, or just the ones that go after people you like? Cause like all public lefts, Glenn’s long on criticism but short on remedies and makes no secret of everything and everyone he despises, which includes me. Is that a problem for you also? Didn’t think so.

      Here’s your homework if you decide to do something more useful than telling a blogger who doesn’t share your loyalties to shut up:

      In this post I have attempted to show how Omidyar behaved in the PayPal/Wikileaks dustup and how Glenn misrepresented that on Twitter. I think it’s quite revealing considering these two are being touted as transparency’s saviors. If it’s not revealing, why isn’t it? Bonus question: Should we care that Dianne Feinstein has received vastly more political contributions from transparency savior Omidyar than any other candidate he’s ever supported? Or is that too negative also?

      • LorenzoStDuBois says:

        Thanks I appreciate the response. I guess GG has been steadily building credibility with me and others over the years and, unlike an Obama loyalist, I don’t think there’s a lot of thread to pull at when it comes to his flaws. I mean, a project like this, assuming he’s going to do one, needs a wealthy backer, and someone once said behind every great fortune is a crime. Obviously Omidyar is no different.

        I think either I’m a Glennbot or your consistently skeptical and antagonistic tone is something I am not accustomed to. I think that could be said for a lot of your attackers.

      • Tarzie says:

        I mean, a project like this, assuming he’s going to do one, needs a wealthy backer, and someone once said behind every great fortune is a crime.

        Generally that saying is not used to justify fortunes or crimes, the way you have. I’d say this is an extraordinary thing for an ostensible lefty to do, except Glenn has a remarkable way of killing the lefty in practically everyone. This is why he is so toxic.

        I suppose it’s far too much to consider the possibility that we don’t need great criminals with great fortunes to liberate us. So how about you simply apply yourself — as I asked you to do in our last exchange — to the specific contradictions in the collaboration under discussion. If I grant, for the sake of argument only, that we really need Glenn and we also need Glenn to have a rich patron, mightn’t there be better patrons than one who is a member of the corporate sector most implicated in the crimes Glenn is ostensibly investigating? Perhaps one not already implicated in the state persecution of dissent? One who is not also a great patron of Dianne Feinstein?

        Then having answered that, consider, Was it really necessary for Glenn to lie on his behalf? Will it be ok if Glenn continues to lie for him as one of his star journalists, something that seems quite likely considering the low stakes of the Twitter exchange I described?

        I think either I’m a Glennbot or your consistently skeptical and antagonistic tone is something I am not accustomed to.

        That’s an easy one. You said you liked me before and like me less now. You seemed fine with my approach when I applied it to people to whom you felt less loyalty, like Charles Pierce, for instance. Skepticism and antagonism are very much part of Greenwald’s schtick too, yet you ‘can’t find a thread to pull at when it comes to his flaws.’ So, yeah, you’re a Glennbot. And the same answer applies to my ‘attackers’ whom you invoke as if they somehow vindicate your extremely uninteresting objections to me. Where I come from, skepticism is a good thing, with or without antagonism, and exceptionally dumb internet mobs don’t faze me one bit.

        To the meagre extent that you’ve addressed the issues raised in my post, every single thing you’ve said in this comment and the last could be used as an alibi for anything and everyone. ‘Nobody’s perfect’ is the breathtakingly incisive gist. No wonder you are suddenly full of sympathy for Obama’s equally besotted apologists.

        Now if you’re going to continue here, could you actually respond to the claims made in the post, rather than irrelevantly weighing Glenn’s character and mine, which apparently aren’t both covered by the “Nobody’s Perfect” clause? Otherwise fuck off for good. I have had way too much of being disgusted by childish hero-worshipers, brandishing their doltish loyalty and affinity for crowds as if they argue for anything an intelligent person would want.

      • diane says:

        ahhhh well, direct ones energy to up and coming appointment with cancer surgeon at stunningly creeeeeeepppppy World Reknowned!!!! [With Hideously Creepy CEO, with absolutely NO MEDICAL BACKGROUND, who has a Stunning Fondness For Surveilling Patients who have no Pricey Attorneys protecting them.] Teaching Hospital!!!! (where all the poor die, the most, in July …. when the Fellows!!!!! are unleashed on the resourceless terminally ill (as according to a secret deal, made in passing, Medicaid and Medicare?), in order to better serve the PLUTOCRATS with their wanting to live past one hundred years old.), ….. or fall back on one’s addiction?

        An Omidyar, anonymous political contribution link (I have no clue as to who runs the following linked site, but I’ve come to prefer it to Open Secrets in many regards), we shouldn’t forget the anonymous and indirect voting contributions Omidyar has made also (see here for an example of his contributions to PACs) as they add, quite significantly, to the damning evidence:

        EBAY INC-COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE INTERNET COMMERCE
        Political Action Committee
        Campaign Contribution Details
        ’04 Election Cycle

  26. LorenzoStDuBois says:

    “Generally that saying is not used to justify fortunes or crimes, the way you have.”

    Dude! Where did I say I justified it? I’m just saying you would be pissed and calling it unacceptable no matter where the money came from.

    “consider the possibility that we don’t need great criminals with great fortunes to liberate us.”

    Ok. It’s possible. But I think there’s a good case to be made that you need resources.

    “mightn’t there be better patrons than one who is a member of the corporate sector most implicated in the crimes Glenn is ostensibly investigating? ”

    I would be very interested to hear about Tarzie’s approved patrons. I don’t think you can name one who is pure enough.

    “Skepticism and antagonism are very much part of Greenwald’s schtick too, yet you ‘can’t find a thread to pull at when it comes to his flaws.’ So, yeah, you’re a Glennbot.”

    The thread metaphor is if you pull on a thread from Pierce, the sweater unravels, whereas if you pull at a flaw in someone else, it might not be indicative of their entire character or body of work. You’ve identified GG’s threads, I just haven’t seen you unravel anything yet.

    “….your extremely uninteresting objections…”

    Oh my God you are such an asshole to everybody!

    “dumb internet mobs don’t faze me one bit.”

    Ok, a bit of persecution complex here. I am not a part of any group. I am disagreeing with you personally. Stop being such a martyr. I’m a lowly commenter while you’re the host.

    “mine, which apparently aren’t both covered by the “Nobody’s Perfect” clause?”

    Can you distinguish between criticizing someone and saying they’re a swindling sellout? I am criticizing you not for criticizing Greenwald but for being so quick to say he’s a swindler because of his working through news agencies and his inconsistencies in mentioning documents, which might be because he’s lying, and might not be.

    Here’s my thought, and you can call me boring and tell me to fuck off which you seem to do with people who don’t agree with you. I think it’s fantastic the way you’re keeping tabs on the Snowden docs and the inconsistencies on what’s being released, and watching what Glenn et. al. are doing. I think your work is rendered less effective by your premature* accusations and personal attacks. You see what I did there? I criticized you but didn’t call you a corrupt sellout! Again, I’m acknowledging that this could be lifted from an Obot defense, but I ask you to consider that maybe sometimes such defenses are hopeless rationalizations out of loyalty, and at other times it’s basic considerations about how to think about flawed people (everyone) and solutions. Certain people build credibility with me based on their actions, on how much of a personal, career or safety risk they have taken, and opportunities to cash in and monetize their situations. That is how I distinguish someone like Obama from someone like Greenwald. And as I hope to convey, GG can destroy his credibility pretty quickly like everyone else.** You can make the argument that the risks he’s taken aren’t that impressive based on the rewards and that he has cashed in in money and fame. I don’t see it that way; the guy has had scary stuff coming out of the Pentagon on him for years, he can’t visit his own family in the US, etc.

    *No you don’t have a smoking gun that GG has lied. Between the fact that one of the quotes (hundreds) was in the middle of a heated argument and the fact that documents can be tallied in different ways, I think you have enough to work with, but not enough to conclude someone is a liar and a sellout. I just disagree with you right now.

    ** It would make me sad though. You see, yes, I admit I love GG. I think he’s done great work and has on so many occasions wonderfully embarrassed the powerful through his arguments and his work. I am a human being. I have heroes. I really like some people and support them. I loved Obama when he was campaigning! Yes, I know, now I have no credibility around here but I was pretty young back then and I claim a right to learn from my mistakes. At least I started hating him only a few months into his presidency and I learned once and for all about the actions/words thing in politics… I’m saying that people can disappoint and become hateful, but just because I and so many people really like GG doesn’t make us morons – at least not in all cases, it just means we’ve been paying attention the last decade, and that you’re going to need to pull that thread farther out than the things you have on him now (which are real!) I’ll say this. The guy has been in the public eye recently, and that will only increase. If he’s really the empty sellout you say he is, I would bet that’s going to become apparent. So at least this is a debate that will eventually have an answer.

    • diane says:

      You, sir, seriously need to read up on Omidyar and CIA/ DOD FUNDED/SUPPORTED (Historically) Silicon Valley. Glenn is most certainly read up on it. Silicon Valley is a CESSPOOL of stunning Inequality, as is California, with a world record in GHASTLY INCARCERATION.

      (I have a comment stuck in spam, Tarzie, its comment number: 4451)

      • diane says:

        (in case you never saw the comment (#4451) I referred to, Tarzie (I have no clue as to running websites, but I have come to realize some comments simply vaporize) I’m posting it below, just in case it vaporized (it was a response (specifically as regards Omidyar’s ANONYMIZED political contributions) to your comment #4429, here):

        ahhhh well, direct ones energy to up and coming appointment with cancer surgeon at stunningly creeeeeeepppppy World Reknowned!!!! [With Hideously Creepy CEO, with absolutely NO MEDICAL BACKGROUND, who has a Stunning Fondness For Surveilling Patients who have no Pricey Attorneys protecting them.] Teaching Hospital!!!! (where all the poor die, the most, in July …. when the Fellows!!!!! are unleashed on the resourceless terminally ill (as according to a secret deal, made in passing, Medicaid and Medicare?), in order to better serve the PLUTOCRATS with their wanting to live past one hundred years old.), ….. or fall back on one’s addiction?

        An Omidyar, anonymous political contribution (PAC) link (I have no clue as to who runs the following linked site, but I’ve come to prefer it to Open Secrets in many regards), we shouldn’t forget the anonymous and indirect voting contributions Omidyar has made also (see here for an example of his contributions to PACs) as they add, quite significantly, to the damning evidence:

        EBAY INC-COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE INTERNET COMMERCE
        Political Action Committee
        Campaign Contribution Details
        ’04 Election Cycle

      • diane says:

        (sorry for that itallics confusion, actually I had coded it correctly on my ghastly MS WORD! doc, have not a clue how it got distorted, it certainly wasn’t your doing, but if you’re able to wipe all the itallics coding, it will likely read clearer a (though you probably need not bother as its clear to those who care about others …and are more than capable of reading between the fucked up html reguirements in order to even be considered worthwhile amongst those running the obscene scenerio we are living in)

      • diane says:

        (Oh, and:

        Dearest St[ained]. Lorenzo,

        …. Fuck you and the BOT ‘horse’ you rode in on, I’ll be your HuckleBerry, …. mother fucker.)

      • diane says:

        As to Omidyar’s address on that site: Los Gatos, CA 95032 , yeah, that’s NOT: STUNNINGLY CANCER RIDDEN Silicon Valley, but it is where many of the Monsterous Tech Moguls decide to live, as it is far away from all those Still STUNNINGLY TOXIC (despite OBSCENE APARTMENT RENTS which humans end up desolate under ….. desperately looking for that job (under a Jack Booting “Capitalism” they’ve never even had any faith or belief in) that will pay their bills) SuperFund Sites (along Central Expressway, and Empire of Cali, Inter$tate Highway 101 which border their Corporate Headquarters which they never make an appearance at.

      • diane says:

        (I should also add (despite how much I once in a while appreciate CAPITALI$T Nick Denton’s much lesser read Valleywag $table of (2) young, unexperienced,economically dependent employee$) that Toxic, Super Fund Sited Silicon Valley, does not at all encompass DIFI/BLUM$ $an Franci$co (which was gentrified from day one, over a century ago), yet young Sam Biddle keeps referring to $an Franci$co, as the most economically tortured gut of $ly Con Valley (I believe Sam Biddle lives in Santa Cruz (where the black population is likely less than 1%), at least a 50 minute drive from the historic (Santa Clara County/THE SOUTH BAY) gut of toxic super fund sited Sly Con Valley), of course Oxford Educated BRIT, Nick Denton, who is supposedly wise (as in made Milllion$ on “High Tech” “Journalism”) beyond his years, never corrects him, though I’m pretty sure Nick knows otherwise from those far: older, wealthier,’ uglier’ and well informed than young Sam, whose commentary I many times enjoy ) ….

    • Tarzie says:

      I would be very interested to hear about Tarzie’s approved patrons. I don’t think you can name one who is pure enough.

      The answer to this straight-outta-the-obot-pragprog-book question can be readily inferred from my comment and my post and that you have insistently ignored this throughout this exchange is indicative of either bad faith or simple stupidity.

      1. A patron who is not part of the corporate sector implicated in the crimes against humanity Glenn is ‘investigating’
      2. A patron who is not already implicated in the government/corporate suppression of dissidence
      3. A patron who is not also a patron of Dianne Feinstein

      But this is all beside the point, because I am not obliged to pick a billionaire patron for Glenn, because as my post and my comments to you also made clear, I think investigative journalism can manage without them. We can also manage without journalists who lie on their patron’s behalf before the ink on the patronage deal is even dry. But you and I clearly don’t agree on that, because we obviously don’t agree on what a lie is. Obviously the bar for determining when someone is lying is much higher for Glenn than it is for other people, even though everyone who has ever been in conflict with him remarks first on how dishonest he is.

      Here’s an example: Glenn now adamantly insists he didn’t actively support the war in Iraq. Read this repellant, reactionary post on Bush’s Latin American critics (‘left-wing fanatics’) from 2005 and decide if that’s really true.

      The rest of your comment is in very much in the vein of the quote I just pulled, a rather foul mix of disinformative mischaracterization, tone-trolling, psychologizing and unbearable tedium. It’s repellant. I am not going to bother with it.

      You see, yes, I admit I love GG.

      Thanks for the full disclosure, but there was really no need. Really. *cringe* No need.

      Now run along and lecture your beloved on catching more flies with honey. See where it gets you.

      • LorenzoStDuBois says:

        “The rest of your comment is in very much in the vein of the quote I just pulled, a rather foul mix of disinformative mischaracterization, tone-trolling, psychologizing and unbearable tedium. It’s repellant. I am not going to bother with it.

        You see, yes, I admit I love GG.

        Thanks for the full disclosure, but there was really no need. Really. *cringe*”

        It is astounding how obnoxious you are. Whatever man. I’m not going to respond to anything you wrote because it’s all stupid too! Yay!

        Good luck trying to build anything when you insist on being this unpleasant, and being paranoid that anyone who wants to discuss anything with you from a different point of view is some sort of paid agent, trolling spy. When I started this thread, I said I used to like you, and now I don’t, and this is why. You have interesting points of view sometimes, but you are simply an awful person to have a discussion with. You have a small weird following of people who agree with everything you say, and these are the only people you listen to. It’s almost like you have your own…. bots!

      • Tarzie says:

        anyone who wants to discuss anything with you from a different point of view is some sort of paid agent, trolling spy.

        How odd for you to say this, since I said no such thing. More mischaracterization. No, sadly, I believe there are people who spend hours policing discourse and disinforming on Glenn’s behalf, with only the filling of their empty dipshit hearts for compensation. They’re not spies. They’re assholes. Some of them say I’m a spy, though. Maybe you have us confused.

        My objection is to people who insistently turn this into a moral issue and obsess on how I say things as opposed to what I actually say. People who disagree on substance – very fucking rare – are well-received. Dishonest, pathologizing tone trolls aren’t. The month of objections to these posts has been one long, loud, breathtakingly stupid, very hypocritical tone troll. Your comments are very much in the same vein. I will not dignify this bullshit by accounting to it.

        Whatever man. I’m not going to respond to anything you wrote because it’s all stupid too!

        That’s been your MO from the beginning, why announce it now? You began with a comment that was 100% tone troll: ‘I like Glenn. You’re mean. I don’t think I like you anymore. Write something else.’ Nothing obnoxious, there, no indeed. I had to press you on the points in my post twice and even when you explicitly took them up, you more or less ignored what they meant. If I am refusing to engage, I am simply syncing up with you but being vastly more honest about it. I should have ignored you when you started, instead of pressing you for actual engagement.

      • diane says:

        Why did you ignore my above comments, Saint Lorenzo, I will bet my life that you’ve read them …and I’ve lived in and witnessed first hand (and much to my horror and despair) Sly Con Valley, where Glenn decided to “place his ‘faith'” ….

        You are despicable.

      • MickStep says:

        Wow, I could hardly believe what I was reading when I read that 2005 post you linked.

        I’m kind of inclined to believe that he must have been ignorant of history at the time he has become aware of since? To imply that poverty in Latin America is because of Socialism rather than tyrannical colonial rule, made possible by US trained death School of America death squads.

        Perhaps he has since seen The War on Democracy by John Pilger and became less brainwashed by US agitprop?

        I am not trying to defend him, it just puzzles me.

      • Tarzie says:

        Yes, yes, there must be some explanation!!!

      • MickStep says:

        Glenn is clearly and out and out capitalist, and I see little reason to believe he has any genuine concern for the poor and downtrodden. He clearly keeps his real politics close to his chest and takes arguments from whatever camp suits him at that particular moment to try and win an argument.

        But was he actually so ignorant at that point in time?

      • Tarzie says:

        Apparently. The amazing thing is to have such strong opinions and be so ignorant. All I ask is for people to know what they don’t know. He’s just a reactionary, know-nothing conformist in the post, reciting reactionary conformist doctrine on radicalism, foreign policy, the ‘national character’ of Venezuelans, the media’s hostility to Bush. And the worst thing is, he now describes that period as ‘apolitical’ — which is completely clueless — and adamantly insists that he didn’t support the War In Iraq, when so much of his venom is aimed at antiwar activists.

      • MickStep says:

        It annoys me so much when people will completely revise their political history to attempt to boost their credentials now, I will openly admit that I supported the Iraq war at the time because I was ignorant. I am not now, and while I wouldn’t consider myself a complete pacifist I can’t see a scenario where I will support any war again.

        There is no shame in admitting you were once ignorant in a sea of indoctrination and propaganda I don’t suppose there was ever a person who was a true seer who was immune to it from birth. I guess with Glenn he needs to project an aura of knowing it all from beginning of when he started blogging, because he has a brand he is trying to sell. (Quite successfully it seems)

        What annoys me so much about how he is received on the left, is all the arguments they regurgitate for him capitalising, on the leaks. Are precisely the same arguments completely abhorred when neocon governments uses for privatising industries.

        He is like the Thatcher of the left wing blogosphere.

  27. Ed C. Helms, A.B. says:

    An interesting multi-part question for Tarzie might be this one.

    If you now are citing a 2005 Greenwald essay to show that Greenwald is an imperial apologist,
    (a) did you agree with Greenwald when he wrote that in 2005,
    (b) was there a point at which you began noticing Greenwald’s imperialist slant,
    (c) what caused you to notice that Greenwald was an imperialist where you were not,
    and
    (d) how much time elapsed between that noting the division between you and Greenwald, and embarking on this present series of essays in which you sometimes offer criticism and skepticism of Greenwald’s agenda?

    • Tarzie says:

      If you now are citing a 2005 Greenwald essay to show that Greenwald is an imperial apologist,

      That’s not why I cited it, clearly, so I am curious why you are characterizing it that way. I cited it as an example of his dishonesty, since he adamantly insists he did not actively support The War in Iraq. I also think it is helpful to know what a reactionary piece of shit the left’s most adorbs celebrity was at the ripe age of 38. Father to the man and all that. Also, caveat emptor.

      Since I have only just discovered that post, all of your other questions are inapplicable, but I will attempt to provide answers that address them in spirit:

      (a) did you agree with Greenwald when he wrote that in 2005

      There has never been a single moment in my life when I would have endorsed any part of that post.

      (b) was there a point at which you began noticing Greenwald’s imperialist slant

      I have not accused him of being an imperialist. My specific complaints about his custodianship of the leaks are explicitly stated here and here.

      (c) what caused you to notice that Greenwald was an imperialist where you were not

      As I have said, I have not observed that he is an outright imperialist. That is not what my complaints have been about. To the extent that that 2005 post offers something other than proof that Glenn is lying when he said he didn’t support Bush’s war, it is the sneering contempt for radicals; the acceptance of state rationales on faith; the risible characterization of the media as reflexively anti-Bush; the ignorance of Latin American history; the almost Andrew Sullivan-like defense of Bush himself; and the ethnocentric contempt for Latin Americans that stick out. It’s really quite the amazing mess. If he has recovered completely from whatever soul-disease was afflicting him just eight years ago, at 38, he is to be congratulated, since change of that kind is very hard.

      (d) how much time elapsed between that noting the division between you and Greenwald, and embarking on this present series of essays in which you sometimes offer criticism and skepticism of Greenwald’s agenda?

      These posts came first. Prior to the Snowden leaks, I was an admirer of Greenwald, though I have always had misgivings about some of his politics, to the extent that I knew them at all. I found the un-Manning narrative alongside the introduction of Snowden extremely disagreeable and said so at the time. It put me on guard. Things got worse. I started writing when Rusbridger did his little computer-smashing thing. Someone linked me to that 2005 post yesterday during a discussion about whether or not Glenn supported the war. That was the first time I’d seen it.

    • diane says:

      oh my, I hadn’t a clue we should all use our full, I have a Professional License!!!! monikers (required by Capitali$M/and certainly United Kingdom of London City Monarchism, in order to make enough money to put a roof over the head), and THEREFORE MY WORD IS PURE ……

      uuuugh, and forgive me, I’m a bit toasted, what is the exact coded meaning of A.B. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      (A specialized barrister ? )

      • Tarzie says:

        Diane:

        His question was civil, so…can we try to make the guests feel a little more comfortable until they switch gears themselves? I am, however, sympathetic to your thoughts on honorific titles, but they can be taken with a grain of salt on the internets anyway – Tarzie, Esq.

      • diane says:

        (I’m sorry, but I’m in a foul mood and really despise gatekeeping honorific titles being tossed about as saintly armor, particularily when they aren’t at all pertinent to the discussion; so I will just put a clamp on it and sulkily disappear off site, please forgive me for my incivility, Esquire! …… :0). I may slurk back when my feathers settle. :0) …. )

      • Tarzie says:

        That’s ok. He was a dweeb.

      • diane says:

        jeesh, sweetie, I kinda like you (ESQUIRE! :0) …..). why couldn’t you and your sweetie live a few thousand miles closer (like next door to me). I’m seriously considering a lobotomy … stuck as I am in this hideous “[NON] neighborhood” …. I hadn’t much choice in ending up stuck in ………

        ;0)

  28. parink says:

    Arthur Silber has a new post up.

    • Trish says:

      Thank you. just read it. brilliant, and so true. Wish I could write like that. I agree that the information that is coming out is because some members of the “elite” want it out. But that does raise a few questions. Are the leaks a “happy accident” that allow for this “staged” debate, or were they planned?

      The thing that has bothered me about these leaks is we know they are spying. But we do not know what they learned from listening in. Maybe it is just me, but if i took such major risk to expose the spying, I think I would also get some examples of the things they learned from spying. Stuff they could have used to blackmail etc. Then again I am “in for a penny, in for a pound” type of gal

  29. Hieroglyph says:

    It really is hard to see Glen’s thinking here. He’s a bright man, he can defend himself I’m sure. I just don’t see what the play is here. Perhaps I just don’t understand careerism, and the pursuit of personal gain, but I don’t really believe that Greenwald is just all about the money. So, he must have his reasons, but baffled I am as to what they may be. I can’t read the whole internet, but I haven’t read anything by Greenwald or The Silicon Mandela about this new venture, so it’s hard to speculate really.

    I’d almost prefer if it was about money. Some people like money, that’s just how it is; and it’s a perfectly rational motive, because life is tough, and money brings some level of security. Of course true greed, Hedge Fund greed, seems to have many similarities to a personality disorder, and we should be wary indeed about that type of human, or manipulator as Silber calls them. But Greenwald is an intelligent, rather driven bloke, and I don’t see Hedge Fund Lunatic in him at all.

    No, sadly, I think what we have here is an unbridgeable divide. Instead of Socialism and Capitalism, we now have Guardianism and Wikileaksism. Wikleaks believe information should be free, and redactions minimized. The Guardian believe in the wisdom of journalists, working within the law, who can decipher and publish information, but have a more conservative view of redactions. Both are Gatekeepers of a sort, because both make decisions on redactions, and more specifically make decisions on emphasis, but truly they are very different. Greenwald does continue to support Wikileaks, but when it came to the crunch, when he himself had the trove, he originally chose Guardianism. It is, arguably, a perfectly valid intellectual position, regardless of whatever (unknowable) promises Greenwald made to Snowden. I happen to believe that it’s a fundamentally small ‘c ‘conservative, small ‘l’ liberal, position, and one that should be scrupulously avoided where possible, but clearly that puts me on the left margins, as usual.

    However, Guardianism is all very well, but Greenwald has moved to even the fringes of Guardianism, he is now with the T-Party equivalent of Guardianism, with a nice movie deal, and a rich chum, and here I don’t see the logic. Maybe it will all work out as advertised, and he’ll continue to do good work, free from interference, with a backer who proves genuine. But that scenario is rare indeed.

    Anyway, that Silber article is brilliant, read that everyone. And thanks to Tarzie for bothering to read and reply to various posters, even if he thinks they are talking nonsense.

  30. Pingback: Another Snowden News Story. Another Lesson in Proper Whistleblowing. | The Rancid Honeytrap

  31. Pingback: Glenn Greenwald, Still Covering for Omidyar on PayPal | The Rancid Honeytrap

  32. Pingback: Fuck These Google Guys | The Rancid Honeytrap

  33. Pingback: Mass Surveillance and No NSA. It Happens! | The Rancid Honeytrap

  34. Pingback: Dr. Rosen and The Snowden Effect | The Rancid Honeytrap

  35. Pingback: For Laughs: Omidyar Media Advisor Jay Rosen in His Own Words | The Rancid Honeytrap

  36. Pingback: No, Pierre Omidyar Does Not Want To Topple The Government | The Rancid Honeytrap

  37. Pingback: In Conclusion | The Rancid Honeytrap

  38. Pingback: Passing Noam on My Way Out – Part 1 | The Rancid Honeytrap

  39. Pingback: Passing Noam on My Way Out, Part 2: Chomsky vs. Aaron Swartz | The Rancid Honeytrap

  40. Pingback: First Look’s Shitty First Outing | The Rancid Honeytrap

  41. Pingback: The Absorption of Matt Taibbi by First Look | The Rancid Honeytrap

  42. Pingback: The Friends of Glenn | The Rancid Honeytrap

  43. Pingback: Åbent brev til Peter Kofod | Du er Journalist

  44. Pingback: Mark Ames vs Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman on USAID | The Rancid Honeytrap

  45. Pingback: Exclusive: The Legendary #Anonymous Paypal 14 Speak Out Post-Sentencing | The Cryptosphere

  46. Pingback: I Read the New York Magazine Omidyar Article So You Don’t Have To | The Rancid Honeytrap

  47. Pingback: Shit I Never Tweeted | The Rancid Honeytrap

  48. Pingback: Another Rat Leaves The Bad Ship Omidyar | The Rancid Honeytrap

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s