There is nothing more more boring in the known universe than Glenn Greenwald’s twitter feed.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
35 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Not sure where along the way GG ended up in his current mindset. Maybe it was always there, and I just didn’t recognize it. He’s one of the smartest guys around, but I just don’t get, at times, where he comes from. Back in the day, his original blog was a must read almost every day. Now, I just don’t know.
Yeah, they were “interesting,” but I wouldn’t say “must-read”:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2012/01/hermeneutics-of-glenn-greenwald-by.html
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2012/01/civil-liberties-v-civil-rights-by-suzie.html
I was mostly referring to the mid-2000’s. Most of the real nutty stuff seems to have come more recently.
Lately, I have given Glenn Greenwald the benefit of the same cynicism he so easily ascribes to everyone else.
To wit: you may note that unlike Booman here, Greenwald makes his living as a political blogger who earns more money if he can get more people to pay attention to him. Certain things got him that attention during the Bush years. Certain different things get him that attention now.
??? The second Echidne link goes into the stuff from the mid-2000’s. Greenwald was far more “nutty” back then.
Greenwald playing dumb and JAQing off. Yeah, nothing new.
I disagree. There is something more boring: progressives having petty quarrels in public.
Incredibly boring.
So progressives shouldn’t disagree? Or they should disagree only in email?
Now that would be boring, either way. Perhaps you have a “third way”?
I didn’t sat THAT at all. There are plenty of things worth arguing about.
For the record I don’t read GG anymore (or many blogs anymore). Can’t deal with the constant negativity.
That’s because it’s all branding.
Sure — anyone that can’t comprehend the validity of his tweet.
Both were perfectly comfortable claiming opposition to equal rights for GLBT people. Both now claim to have “evolved.” As if thinking through an issue of equality requires years and personal encounters with GLBT individuals and not the hour or less that those who hold equality as one of the highest principles expended on such thinking.
We all know that Obama has supported gay marriage since the mid 90s. The rest has all been for show while the people moved towards supporting equality. Like it or not that’s the truth and there’s a good chunk of yellow-dog Democrats that “evolved” right along with Obama.
Not sure who “we” is or how that “we” knew something that Obama has not only not publicly affirmed but has also specifically and repeatedly denied. Plus, if you go back and check, civil unions was considered radical in the mid-nineties. Vermont was the first state to enact civil unions and that was in mid-2000 and signed by then Governor Howard Dean. In 2003 there was no shortage of democratic bloggers that viewed Dean’s POTUS candidacy a non-starter because he’s signed that law.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/02/politics/obama-evolution-gay-marriage
“While running for the Illinois Senate, Obama signs a questionnaire for a gay Chicago publication saying he favors legalizing same-sex marriages.”
That’s something I’ve seen in print in quite a few other places over the years so I’d assumed most progressives were aware of it.
So now Marie is faced with two possibilities: She can acknowledge that Obama has, in fact, long supported gay marriage and was obviously b.s.ing during the campaign and his first term; or she can pretend to believe that he once supported gay marriage, then evolved away from it, and then evolved back to supporting it.
One of these would require her to admit error and abandon a line of attack against President Obama. The other would require her to adopt a wholly implausible position for the sake of not backing down and staking out a maximally anti-Obama position.
I know which way I’d lay my money.
He once smoked pot and as POTUS had his justice department bust medical marijuana clubs. So, starting from a liberal position and moving right isn’t limited to same-sex marriage for Obama. It’s even rather common for a large number of people as they age.
Not up to me to differentiate when or if the man presents a false face. Or explain how he could regress 180 degrees. Doesn’t really matter to me what’s in his heart and mind; only what he does and states publicly.
Once again I must ask that you ignore my comments and that includes not referring to me in the third person. As a citizen of this country, I’m free to criticize and critique the words and actions of politicians that I disagree with and work hard to apply the same standards and principles regardless of the political affiliation of the politician. Attacking me to conform to a partisan position serves no purpose other than to increase divisiveness and we really don’t need more of that.
It’s even rather common for a large number of people as they age.
Where “as they age” means “between an interview in 1996 and his Senate campaign in 2002.” It’s very common, you say, for people to regress on the issue of gay marriage over the course of six years in the late 90s and early 00s. Um ok.
Not up to me to differentiate when or if the man presents a false face.
If you’re going to hold forth on what a politician believes, then yes, it is. All you’re saying here is that nobody should take what you are saying seriously, because you don’t intend to make any effort to ascertain whether what you are saying is true.
Doesn’t really matter to me what’s in his heart and mind…
That’s funny, because you keep telling us what’s in his heart and mind, including in this very comment, where you opened up with a paragraph explaining what happened in his heart and mind.
Once again I must ask that you ignore my comments…
No. The way this whole “free speech” thing works is that you get to say what you want, and other people get to agree or disagree.
I do like the part where you denounce the Democratic President, accuse me of blind partisanship for disagreeing with you, and then bemoan divisiveness. That’s pretty awesome.
So, he was for it before he was against it. Not unlike many other issues on which the man has taken stands.
More boring still: the internet comment that confuses “agree with” and “comprehend.”
And the whole, pretentious, why-can’t-the-world-be-good-enough-for-my-mind? internet posture that embodies.
Both were perfectly comfortable claiming opposition to equal rights for GLBT people.
…while one worked throughout his career to actively oppose equal rights, while the other worked throughout his career to advance them.
I don’t see the point of jumping on either Portman or Obama. I don’t particularly care about Portman’s son one way or the other. What I care about is that Rob Portman is a United States senator. If this makes it more likely that the Senate will pass bills that promote marriage equality (like, I don’t know, maybe repealing DOMA?), that’s a good thing.
I don’t see the point of jumping on either Portman or Obama.
Echoing Portman’s statement and talking about how understanding the reality of gay relationships changes people’s hearts would seem to be a real opening for supporters of civil rights for gay people to exploit. Going after him on the grounds that BooMan does, while true and legitimate, doesn’t seem to accomplish much beyond dumping on Republicans.
I love dumping on Republicans, Lord knows, but I fear that we’re missing an opportunity here.
Infinitely more boring is the pettiness, partisan nonsense and hypocrisy of numerous “progressives” in Bloggo world.
Here’s the classic example of progressive partisan baloney: back when dumbya was POTUS, Paul Krugman frequently criticised his economic policies, or lack of. Progressives in Bloggo world lauded Krugman as an economic “genius” and totally correct in his criticism.
After about a year of Obama being in office, Krugman (correctly) criticised his economic policies– the very same “progressives” called Krugman “nuts” and stated “he’s out to get Obama”.
???
The same thing goes on with writers like Greenwald. I have to conclude more than a few “progressive” bloggers are jealous. they are simply never going to get to the level of Greenwald, get the sort of recognition he does.
Do you have access to a different internet than me?
Do you have an actual point or question?
or is this to be the usual sophomoric baloney I’ve seen get worse and worse over the years in Bloggo world?
After about a year of Obama being in office, Krugman (correctly) criticised his economic policies– the very same “progressives” called Krugman “nuts” and stated “he’s out to get Obama”.
Again, do you have access to a different internet than everyone I know, including myself? This absolutely did not happen, and is not happening. About the absolute best argument you could make wrt certain progressives and Krugman — and it would be a stretch — is that Krugman supported Hillary over Obama, and some during the primaries didn’t like it. And even still, that’s a major stretch.
I can think of exactly one criticism of Obama’s economic policies that Krugman received meaningful pushback on: his argument that the government should have nationalized the banks instead of recapitalizing them.
Of course, a couple years later, Krugman admitted he was wrong.
I wouldn’t even say it was major pushback. Maybe a very vocal minority? But most of the progressive blogosphere wanted nationalization, too!
Of course, as I argued endlessly then, nationalization was not possible, politically or practically. If it was, I would have supported it.
Yes, it did happen: at dailykos.
and I’m confident it also happened at Democratic Underground, tho’ I was not a member of the site at the time.
the behavior of some “progressives” is totally predictable.
It only seems to be getting worse because the ratio of progressives to democratic partisans has gotten lower over the past decade. The latter have never been all that thoughtful or principled.
Exactly. again, the behavior (blind partisanship) of numerous “progressives” in Bloggo world is very predictable.
the very same “progressives” called Krugman “nuts” and stated “he’s out to get Obama”.
citation omitted
Onions and sliced potatoes with minced garlic sauteed in butter.
Oops. Clicked the wrong darn button.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald