Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn
I essentially agree with and/or understand everything in your response. I intended to but forgot to mention in my previous comment that you're clearly having a meaningful indirect influence on the establishment media in that many if not most of its members whom you've criticized appear to be paying attention to you, and perhaps this is where you're going to have the most influence for now. I.e. don't "join 'em", but continue to "beat 'em", in the sense of continuing to criticize and deconstruct their lies and quackery and expose them for all to see.
And I also agree that 30 second sound bite appearances would be pointless, silly and even counterproductive. But longer-length and more substantive appearances, on your terms, in which you were guaranteed a certain slot of time, and got some say in whom you appeared against or with (e.g. yes to Brad Berenson or Jack Goldsmith, no to Melanie Morgan or Laura Ingraham) and what you'd be able to talk about, would, I think, be helpful, on certain shows and in certain forums. Certainly so in print, in the better newspapers and magazines (e.g. NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, Nation, New Yorker), but also on TV, because like it or not, it's where most Americans still get their "news" and "opinion", and which strongly influences their own opinions.
And I'm still amazed that you haven't appeared on either the Daily Show or Colbert Report. Yes, they're "silly", but still somehow manage to have a positive effect in advancing the progressive message, I think, in their own unique way. What this says about our country is a whole other matter, and perhaps why you'd hesitate to appear on them even if you agreed with this--i.e. don't feed the pop culture beast that our political and media establishment have succumbed to, even in its more positive venues. Still, every rule does have its exceptions, and I'd think that the exposure to a group of people who probably still haven't heard of you would help in getting your message out and helping to establish that alternative media base that you mentioned.
After all, Amy Goodman and other "radical progressives" have appeared on these shows, and done quite well on them, I think. It's all about countering BS, lies and spin with truth, reason and intelligence, using whatever medium, forum and platform that works.
Anyway, my two cents. Keep up the great work.
-
Standing
P.D. "Bo" Steele does not seem to understand the legal concept of "standing". Please look at <http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm>.
If that is too heavily legalistic, look at Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing> and click on "Standing (law)".
-
P.D. "Bo" Steele
If a top painter could paint a masterpiece that would change what he considered wrong with the world, would he not do it? Or would he lay down his brush and start drawing cartoons?
Would that such an artist ever existed, or had such influence and power. Picasso painted his masterpiece Guernica, and yet Franco stayed in power for 40 years, and his Axis allies proceeded to destroy the rest of Europe.
Furthermore, in his own way, what you are implying that an artist could do is precisely what Glenn is doing, i.e. telling all who care to listen all that's wrong with things today, in quite masterful fashion. In your analogy, said artist would, instead of painting his masterpiece, take paint companies to court for making poor quality paint, in order to address such problems.
Glenn is a high profile litigator, well trained, and obviously well educated. He claims that our country is rife with violations of the law, and that we are all one jackboot away from fascism. The courts are the designated places for violations of the law in our system, are they not?
It seems to me Glenn should lay down his keyboard and take up his briefcase. A federal lawsuit only costs a couple of hundred dollars and an injunction hearing could be set within weeks of a filing.
I wouldn't call that lazy or cowardly. I would call that having the courage of one's rhetoric.
I suspect that Glenn has been consulted by a number of people who have sued or are seeking to sue in court in such matters. But he is only human, and can only do so much with his limited time, energy and resources. Sure, he can litigate, and do much good there. But there are plenty of highly talented and principled litigators who are already doing that, but who don't have the time, talent or interest in doing what Glenn does.
Furthermore, just because a person's original expertise and experience is in one area doesn't mean that they are forever restricted to it, or only able to have a positive influence through it. By your logic, Wes Clark should stop writing books and making appearances and re-enlist in the military, in the hopes changing our policy in Iraq. Or, at least, run for office. He chooses not to, and yet continues to have a positive and powerful effect.
Viewing litigation as the silver bullet that will solve all or most of our problems is, I repeat, naive. It is certainly important, and necessary, but simply not sufficient, or even as important as the other steps that I outlined in my previous comment to you. And while Glenn would certainly have a powerful effect as a litigator, I think that he is having a far more powerful one doing what he's doing now, which is what they refer to in the military as a "force multiplier".
And there's no reason to believe that he won't someday return to legal work if he thinks that it would genuinely help, or do it simultaneous to writing, if he felt that this was possible. The two are not mutually exclusive, e.g. Stephen Breyer--or, more odiously, Clarence Thomas.
-
The Way Out
I am one of those people who believe the situation is, for practical purposes, hopeless. Where I do have hope is that I am wrong.
It is possible to change the system. What you need are enough people willing to either reform the Democrats or create a powerful third party. I suspect the former would be easier than the latter.
Consider how the far right has taken over the machinery of the Republican party. The religious right now threatens to bolt if Guiliani is the nominee.
And the likely Democratic nominee is, on the issues under discussion, barely distinguishable from Guiliani and Bush.
The system that produces outcomes like this can only be changed when millions of people come together with intensity and focus (and money) to effect structural changes that will not only rollback the hideous policies of the past several years, but put in place safeguards that minimize the chance of this happening again.
Let us all speculate as to how likely it is that enough of us get together to effect genuine change. I think it is unlikely in the extreme. But can anyone imagine (in a general way) another path to fundamental reform?
I would like to hear it, but I won't torture you to try to get you to talk.