The whole of our loss of personal liberties starts and ends with the 911 attack that was done by western intelligence agencies for the purpose of clamping down the hand of a police state upon the American people.

Thorn, I'm kind of a "troother" my own self, but here's the thing: I don't stop looking for truth on 11 September. The fact is that we were being illegally surveilled well before then, even in the Modern Golden Age that was the Clinton Administration. And we have being "legally" surveilled for a long long time.

I am LIHOP, you are MIHOP. Fine. However, whatever happened on that crappy, crappy day was not the "start and end" of anything. Just one step along the road, and one that didn't start with Bush nor will it end with Obama.

No Need for Lawmakers' Approval of Iraq Pact, U.S. Reasserts

http://tinyurl.com/3asct5

Maybe the last seven years have been just an elaborate Jedi mind trick ...

True that.

Personally, I haven't found the environment around here to be as pervasively rude and abusive as omooex and Nequals1 describe it... I kind of fled here quite some time ago from sites I found much worse because of the often high level of the discussion at UT.

However, I can certainly add my voice to any call for people to read the totality of others' writings, and to give better than you get in terms of courtesy. Nothing's easier than flaming someone you don't have to look in the eye... similarly, taking the time and effort to elevate online discourse pays off in more ways than one.

This is like one of those hall-of-mirrors things: you're writing letters to someone you think of as a "leader," trying to get them to make the change you want to see made... and all the while mocking people who think the way to make change is to write letters to people they see as "leaders."

My brain hurts!

At the risk of lowering the discourse to bumper-sticker platitudes, you would probably better accomplish your goals by "be the change you want to see" than by trying to hector Glenn or anyone else into doing it for you. Light a candle rather than cursing the darkness. Etc.

Why do you assume you can't build a following to fight the system? Have you tried? Better yet have you thought of joining forces with any of the many groups who are already doing all that?

I maintain that expecting Glenn Greenwald to somehow be the Lenin of our new movement is as futile than waiting for "more and better Democrats." This is not to cast aspersions at Glenn, but, you know, from each according to his ability.

If Glenn wanted to lead a revolution, I'd suspect he'd be doing so already.

Monkeywrenching has proven to be an effective means of protest and activism, not only shedding light on various political issues, but also providing a very active means of resistance through a list of tactics.

Ah, bullshit.

I know (I think?) you were being droll, LWM, but monkeywrenching hasn't proven to be effective at all that much other than self-gratification (Revolutionary Masturbation) and aggravating the people you want to be on your side.

What has proven to be an effective means of activism is a social programs of the kind run by the Zapatistas and Hamas. Free medical care, education, and other such real person-to-person assistance has a great way of winning people over to your cause. It's actually a model that worked really well in this country too, in the days before union-busting was enshrined in law. The Democratic party actually had organisations on the ground (often lumped in with Tammany Hall and other "machines") that helped poor and working-class people when no one else would.

It does, of course, have the downside of being unsexy as hell. But, YMMV.

Indeed, the form of Direct Action advocated under the Paul Daniel Ash Revolutionary Plan (let's call it Assism for short) would involve unglamorous in-the-trenches medical care and job retraining, etc. combined with mediagenic culture-jamming of the Yes Men model.

Win Their Hearts and Kick Some Ass!! Who's with me? LET'S GOOOOOOoooooo......

Jaime, I don't think of myself as one who is in Glenn Greenwald's "amen corner." I think he's got a good mind, and though he's not the world's most gripping writer, he pays attention to things I think are important, and he's attracted a number of people (present company included) whose opinions I find interesting and/or challenging.

Yesterday it seems like you were swinging a bit wide, and Glenn pushed back. I went through yesterday's letters, and I don't personally find anything over the line.

Regarding "despicable," the relevant quote seems to be "I find it pretty despicable to cast aspersions on people's integrity and throw words around like "unethical" and "possibly illegal" when the accuser knows he has no "evidence" to support anything he's saying." I think that's fair, and substantive.

"Rude" is in the eye of the beholder, and I'd probably feel different if it were me on the receiving end of a blast from the site host. However, I'm speaking as one who appreciates directness - within reasonably limits of courtesy - over politeness for politeness's sake.

If you can point to specific instances of what you consider rude, I might find it more persuasive.

Just checking - you do get that the "slavery" bit was a prank, right?

The fact that it wnet over, is of course, testament to the fact that slavery is nothing new to the WTO, and that, yes, boxes of rocks stand a good chance of being appointed to many corporate boards.