Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2123 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Re: critiques
[Read the article: BloggingheadsTV session with the Politico's Ben Smith]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I genuinely appreciate everyone who took the time to voice criticisms, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't, and they raise some interesting issues:
(1) Clearly, the technical set-up was sub-par, to put it mildly. We did a test and they said it was OK though did mention the sound quality was a little poor. That had to do with the room and the type of microphone, and the lighting and background issues - which I spent little time thinking about - were also poor. I also couldn't hear his end of the phone very well for the last 10 minutes or so. Those are all easily improved, and I appreciate everyone who left suggestions, here and via e-mail.
(2) As for stylistic issues, I've obviously done a lot of speaking in a lot of different contexts -- jury trials, oral arguments, speeches, tv and radio apperances and debates, etc. -- and have thus given thought to these issues before. People have different persuasive styles, and what works for some people doesn't work for everyone. In my view, the most critical thing no matter the context is authenticity -- the worst thing anyone can try to do is manufacture or contrive a personality.
When it comes to speaking about political issues, I'm not really interested in projecting warmth and dispassion and a pleasant and friendly sense of humor. I realize that can be an effective tactic for some people, but not for everyone. It's not my natural disposition when thinking about these things. Passion and intensity and even some restrained though unpleasant anger are -- so if those are the overriding sentiments, even excessively so, so be it.
To be honest, I think there is too much cool detachment and fake friendly smiles and amicable smirking jokes around our political discourse. I'm not Charles Gibson or Bill Hemmer and I'm not going to try to be.
(3) Some of the stylistic critiques I agree with. I have a natural inclination to speak too quickly, for instance, and have devoted a lot of efforts to speaking much more slowly. But that's where this format comes in and why I'm not a fan of it.
The format, in a sense, mixes a bunch of incompatible attributes. Rather than, say, having the formality of being in a television studio or even on a radio debate with a moderator -- where one is much more conscious about presentational issues -- this ends up having the feeling of chatting on the phone while sitting at home. That creates an informality which is what explains why they end up being so chatty and giggly and substance-free.
So one can't really act as though it's a formal debate because it isn't. It relies too much on the conversation turn-taking devices of a friendlier conversation. So it felt informal and chatty, and since the subject matter -- the reporting of The Politico and Ben Smith -- was one that provokes a mood of irritation and some contained disgust, that ended up being the tenor of the "conversation."
It was basically civil and polite enough, just a little nasty and unpleasant, but not really in a substantive way. I think that was due to a combination of the incompatability of my style of argument with the informal format, the technical annoyances on my end, and my rather negative view of the subject matter of what we were discussing.
-
Casual Observer:
[Read the article: What will be done about James Comey's revelations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Fein is just spitting, barking mad about this Administration and its assault on civil liberties.
Fein has been one of the most forceful and eloquent advocates on these issues from the earliest days when the NSA scandal first emerged. In December, 2005, he wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Times arguing that Congress should immediately order the President to cease illegal eavesdropping and if he does not comply, then impeachment proceedings should be commenced. He recognized from the very beginning what was at stake -- one of the few people of any political prominence to do so back then.
He also worked a lot with Russ Feingold on the Censure Resolution and then testified at the hearing, along with John Dean. And you may have noticed that he was quite resistant to the idea that Comey, Ashcroft & Company were as heroic as Tribe was making them out to be, notwithstanding their rebellion on this single issue.
-
Paul
[Read the article: The administration's FISA falsehoods continue unabated]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Note the careful use of the word "essentially" in order to cover for the fact that he's lying like a rug. The law in question was completely rewritten to the administration's specifications shortly after 9-11 but has nevertheless been willfully violated repeatedly ever since it was rewritten.
He did say "essentially" in one sentence, which is why I said some of his statements are highly misleading. But in other sentences, he flatly said the law has not been changed to take into account technological changes, which is not merely misleading.
-
i_ween
[Read the article: The Islamic enemy within]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Pew stats you posted on torture virtually do not vary from group to group. All people believe in torture equally, according to that poll. Thus proving Catholicism correct: original sin exists.
Actually, "secularists" opposed torture in all circumstances
(41%) at a substantially higher level than Christians.
But I was simply using the same (invalid) reasoning they used today against Muslims and applying it to other groups. They didn't bother with the comparisons. They simply took the Pew findings and ran with them. The point is that the same methods could be used to demonize virtually any other group.
-
Hume's Ghost:
[Read the article: The Islamic enemy within]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For those interested, I've written a post detailing somewhat the history of Reagan-era plans to extra-legally and extra-constitutionally establish a new "president" in the event of an emergency.
Actually, Hume's Ghost is the one who alerted me to that emergency order and I intended, but forgot, to link to his post analyzing it. I'll rectify that now.