Thursday, July 10, 2008

Speak Up! I Can't Hear You!

Yesterday found one of our favorite objects of antagonism, Glenn Greenwald, getting snippy with Al Giordano. Al responds in kind. I think he comes off the better in the exchange, but journalistic methodology doesn't interest me very much, since everything is permissible in a universe where nothing is true, etc. etc., ad inf., et alia, gloria, hosanna, amen.

It's just this evident conviction, widely shared and endlessly amplified, that a "defeat" of the "FISA bill" will represent a roadblock, a pothole, a piece of gravel on the road to the Last Exit to Panopticon . . . I mean, it would be fun and potentially profitable to sue a lot of big telecoms, but the notion that this new legislation "expands" surveillance by, what?--admitting to it; it's crazy talk, man, crazy talk.

And this, I suppose, is the goofy theological underpinning of progressivism: Fallen, but Perfectible. In this narrative, the United States has "gotten away from its principles," or what have you, drifted from its noble roots as a genocidal slave-owning patrician Republic, and we have but to reclaim some noble period of principle, sometime after Jackson killed all those Injuns and after Lincoln freed all those slaves but before we, uh, occupied the Philippines? Am I on the right track here? When was the last time the 4th Amendment actually obtained in this country?

Reading the Constitution or the Federalist papers or what have you is as meaningful an insight into the actual operations of the American Empire as Marx into the workings of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Somehow I don't see ol Glenn showing up here to defend himself on this point. Maybe he'll be smart enough to shut up after the paddling Giordano gave him.

adspar said...

Did Glenn's first message seem offensive? "Prosecutorial"? I kind of agree with the part of his (offensive and prosecutorial) second email that said his first message was politely stated.

Ashley said...

Glenn's the winner.

The question was, "What about every country you just indicted in addition to Mexico?"

It's a sweeping claim without enumeration or citation. I don't have any trouble believing parts of it. I'd find religion if Columbia, for example, weren't doing the same. But the claim as it stands seems to be horseshit and the "American hemisphere" was pretty slippery. Usually it's the compass points, not a couple of continents to try to narrow down the list to support your argument. Algeria, Fiji, France, and plenty of others are in the "hemisphere" until you back fix the "American."

So, Canada is in on it? Greenland? Puerto Rico, Panama, Jamaica, Belize, Bermuda? Without citations it's just another crank working himself into a froth because someone asked him for proof.

Dylan Hirsch-Shell said...

I agree with adspar and ashley. I don't think anything in Greenwald's first email could be considered "prosecutorial" or "accusatory", nor can it reasonably be seen as part of a "witch-hunt" or a "crusade."

Greenwald simply asked Giordano to provide the sources for his sweeping claims of hemisphere-wide sharing of all communications with the U.S. government. As Greenwald correctly points out in the end, Giordano could not provide any sources, and therefore a discerning reader cannot in good conscience accept his remarks as true.

All that being said, I think the evidence that telecommunications companies within the U.S. illegally provided the U.S. government with blanket access to communications by American citizens is overwhelming. One doesn't need to subscribe to some "goofy theological" notion of the United States as a noble Republic that has Fallen from grace in order to make a case for why the law as it stands should be enforced, and why it should not be changed to provide retroactive immunity to the telecoms simply because they did the President's bidding.

One simply needs to subscribe to those "goofy theological" notions of "checks against unfettered executive power" and "the rule of law."

Now, granted those are Ideals that are never going to be achieved with anything close to Perfection. If you'd like to argue that both of those concepts are devoid of meaning or not worth trying to attain, then go right ahead. But I shudder to think how much worse the world would be if we didn't even have those basic guiding principles to strive for.

Anonymous said...

If you'd like to argue that both of those concepts are devoid of meaning or not worth trying to attain, then go right ahead.

Well, the concept theoretically means something but, given that it is not practiced and probably never will be, the theory alone is what you're left with. Not worth trying to attain? You haven't been reading long enough.

Anonymous said...

When someone starts right out misspelling the name of the person to whom he's responding, I sit up and take note.

Leaving aside Al's claims about ego, etc., Al would have it that to promote his career, Glenn refuses to acknoweldge, or is naive, about the widespread underground surveillance that is 'common knowledge' (according to his commenters.)

However, Glenn's point wasn't about Mexico nor did he refute that Mexico and other countries turn over communications to US agencies. He instead asked:

"What's your basis for stating that every country in the hemisphere other than the three you mentioned turns over all communications involving a U.S. citizen to the U.S. Government?

Al never responds to that because he's got other fish to fry:

"What's clear is that Greenwald isn't interested in this very interesting set of facts about global surveillance because he obviously perceives it as inconvenient to the narrative he's been pushing of late."

Al, having answered Glenn with an email largely centering on Mexico, not the point of Glenn's original query, elicits from Glenn:

"That is an extraordinary claim to make -- in your desperate effort to defend Barack Obama in all that He does -- and I simply asked for your basis for the claim."

WHAT? (in effect) says Al, prompting him to compare Glenn to Roy Cohn.

"You're evidently on a witch-hunt, Glenn. I haven't even posted a single blog entry or story about the FISA debate."

Come to think of it, Al, that's right. You didn't.

"Let's stop the fake courtesy, Glenn", says Al.

"Let's"? Was there any courtesy, fake or otherwise, in any of Al's emails?

Moving on, to prove that this isn't about Al's ego, he writes:

"And from time to time a Tyrannosaur looks down at this little Velociraptor and thinks, Oh goodie! Dinner!

Well, history shows what's happened in each of those cases, and this smaller but faster creature has taken a piece out of many that thought they could push him around. And you know what happens if you don't do that? They come around more frequently to try to interfere with your own hunting expeditions.

This creature has the advantage of being one that doesn't work alone. My protection from aspiring bullies is that there are others like me and we hunt in packs. Only by bringing this exchange out into the sunlight do the big lizards see that we little ones, united, are hardly defenseless or powerless, and, to the contrary, more lethal when it comes getting things done."

Presumably, little lizards hunting in packs--- Field Hands all working together to contribute money to send Al to Denver (ONWARD TO DENVER!), is the only kind of hunting expedition that matters now.

Al claims that, presumably unlike Glenn, he's a practical person who picks his battles and usually wins. It appears much of his activity over the last thirty years has been centered on the drug wars.

Gee, Al, little lizard though you be, you certainly took that one on and brought down the Dragon.

"Although it is clear that whites sell most of the nation’s cocaine and account for 80 percent of its consumers," reports the Los Angeles Times, citing law officers and judges, "it is blacks and other minorities who continue to fill up America’s courtrooms and jails, largely because...they are the easiest people to arrest." It’s easier to round up the usual scapegoats."

the_system said...

IOZ sez, in essence: "I think Giordano comes away the victor of the exchange, but I don't give a shit and it doesn't matter anyway because I'm just using it as a lead-in to a related but entirely different discussion."

IOZ's commentators, in essence: "Yeah, but determining the victor of an internet slap-fight is soooo much more important than considering the actual effect of passing (or not) the FISA bill.

A republic, gentlemen...

Also, blahhhhhhhhhhhhg!

IOZ said...

A republic, madam. Sexist! Where's the dienonychus when you need him.

But yes, if I may emphasize the_system's timely (thanks!) point: the Chinaman is not the issue, dude.

the_system said...

Yes. Madam. Yikes. Veuillez m'excuser!

Anonymous said...

Some people just gotta call bullshit when they smell it stinking up the room, that's all.

Besides, I thought we weren't supposed to take any of that political stuff seriously since we're all fucked and doomed anyhow.

Mr.Fundamental said...

it's like they're trying to find reverse on a Soviet tank, or whatever.

Anonymous said...

IOZ's commentators, in essence: "Yeah, but determining the victor of an internet slap-fight is soooo much more important than considering the actual effect of passing (or not) the FISA bill.

But that's not the choice as the latter isn't in favor here, where the host, defensively coated with ennui, and his favored few don't give a shit about anything since we killed the Indians.

Dunc said...

I believe the point IOZ may be trying to make on "the actual effect of passing (or not) the FISA bill" is that the distinction between requiring a warrant issued retro-actively by a secret rubber-stamp court and not requiring a warrant at all is one without any practical merit. Pass the "FISA bill" or not, it doesn't actually make any damn difference.

Of course, I may be mistaken...

the_system said...

Lil' ol' me sez, in essence: Ya'll are missing the point of the post.

IOZ's (anon, so far) commentators, in essence: Oh yeah?! Well... YOU'RE A POOP FACE! NYAH NYAH!

Oh me! Oh my! Progressive!

IOZ said...

I think one is filled with ennui, not coated in it.

Brian said...

I think one can also exist in an ectoplasmic cloud of ennui-baryons which provide a protective charge that limits the impact of the Strong Concern Force.

Anonymous said...

basted, perhaps

Anonymous said...

Shorter the_system: watch me jettison reading comprehension in my shameless attempt to become IOZ's favorite salad-tosser!

John Caruso said...

I'd say any "prosecutorial tone" in Greenwald's initial request is the product of the reader, not the writer; the tone was neutral, and what you take from it depends on the mental inflection you impose. Giordano chose to read it as a peremptory demand and get miffed rather than providing concrete information to back up what he'd said (though it's not something I'd doubt, given things like this). That's one of the reasons I don't read Narco News—there aren't many people from whom I'll accept "dude, trust my secret sources on this" journalism, and that's been the rule in the Narco News stories I've read in the past.

Regarding "your desperate effort to defend Barack Obama in all that He does," I didn't know anything about Giordano's opinions before reading this exchange, but after taking a few minutes to read through his older postings I certainly get the impression that he's filled with Obamalove. And given the impetus ("witch-hunt", "HUAC", "Roy Cohn"), I think Greenwald's slight snippage there there was warranted. And the caps were funny, man.

So a perfectly reasonable question and a nice followup tweak from Greenwald, and hand-waving and self-promotion from Giordano (and I get the impression that from the moment he read the initial email he planned to flog it for some publicity—thus the writing-for-the-bleachers style). No question in my mind who came out of the exchange looking worse.

IOZ said...

Oh, good lord.

Anonymous said...

Don't get all huffy, sweetcheeks. We get your point and we mostly agree with it - Greenwald's being all Don Quixote here, trying to salvage some sort of noble story out of American history is like hanging a tree air freshener over an open sewage pit.

That said, I do feel that your admitted upbringing as a child of affluence and privilege tends to account for your inability to understand why anyone would bother fighting over scraps of dignity or principle. Sometimes, you know, little things make a slight difference for a few people, and some of us accept that as the best we're going to get.

Mr.Fundamental said...

forget about the fucking toe.

Anonymous said...

pardon the metaphor, but: The Constitution is an owner's manual written by geeks for a nation that at the time was the equivalent of a Commodore 64. People couldn't read and comprehend it well then and haven't been able to keep pace with all the updates. I guess the courts are the tech support, if they answer the phone and don't put you on hold and happen to know what they're talking about. Congress and presidents are a buncha hackers, raiding bank accounts and spreading viruses.

The thing is, it's the only manual we have. Without it we freeze. The Fourth Amendment, like the rest of the thing, is a theory that we've been at times able and unable to put into practice. If we just junk the theory along with the manual, we've got nothing at all to go by, and we also make it official: The Constitution is a theory like intelligent design is a theory; we should not teach it, we should not live by it.

Scary. What a loss that would be. No matter how badly we understand and how ineptly we try, the Constitution is still a goal to strive for. Yes, it's striving for perfection. But what else are we gonna do? What choice do we have? Strive for imperfection? Release our inner rapists and plunderers? Sit on our asses and change the channel?

I haven't read you here before and could easily be misinterpreting your ethos, but...What you seem to be saying, Ioz, is that chaos is all there is, and the only way to handle it is anarchy. Well, you might be the perfect anarchist, someone who doesn't need laws to keep him/herself civilized. How many people are as good as you?

Our history as a species is one of careening from despotism to anarchy like a pinball machine. The Constitution is an experiment in calming us down - you must admit we do get a bit wild, all drenched in blood and marching into the future on the bones of the horribly murdered and quietly starved.

That document, fragile as it is on its brittle parchment, is our mediation between our two extremes. It's really all we've got, so we're best served by trying to understand it and live by it. We'll never be perfect, but we should be smart enough to try.

thass'all...

IOZ said...

That document, fragile as it is on its brittle parchment, is our mediation between our two extremes. It's really all we've got, so we're best served by trying to understand it and live by it. We'll never be perfect, but we should be smart enough to try.

Fuck, dude, you could be talking about Leviticus. "It's really all we've got." Really?

I do feel that your admitted upbringing as a child of affluence and privilege tends to account for your inability to understand why anyone would bother fighting over scraps of dignity or principle.

I take that in the spirit that's in meant, but exactly what principle and whose dignity are we supposedly fighting for?

Anonymous said...

Fuck, dude, you could be talking about Leviticus. "It's really all we've got." Really?

For managing human savagery, which is what law is all about, it's about the best thing going. (Hmmm...I probably should have posted just that in the first place.) Your response implies you've got a better way. So, let's have it (unless it's just mass suicide...too easy, also too bloody likely).

(and besides, I risked posting all that idealism because you said you were gone...I don't throw myself to the wolves if I know they're actually there)

Mr.Fundamental said...

WALTER
You know, that's your answer for everything,
Dude. And let me point out something--pacifism
is not--look at our current situation
with that camelfucker in Iraq--
pacifism is not something to hide
behind.

Anonymous said...

IOZ said...
Oh, good lord
, as he rolled his eyes toward the heavens, basted in ennui (IOZ, not the heavens.)

mr. fundamental:

What camelfucker? You said "current" so I assume you are talking about someone still alive.
Who? I missed the point you were making about a camelfucker and pacifism. Could you explain that? Thanks.

Monsier IOZ:

Respectfully, I rejected your suggestion to substitute "coated" with "filled", but accepted a more appropriate revision ---"basted." If you were filled with ennui, comme on dit, there wouldn't be enough space in the interior of IOZ for the little green eyed monster to thrive so successfully.

alexi de sadesky said...

the white guy just walked into the party and the record is screeching... duck!

Mr.Fundamental said...

calmer than you are.

Anonymous said...

This new anon has me convinced. Does the sun even rise without America? How would you reaaaaaly know, you rich fags:You haven't lived without it. Commence the grovelling to the best thing we've got at the moment, which is also inherently flawed but - AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE!

also: BLAWWWWWWG