Letters to the Editor
-
And Yes I Realize Jack Bauer Is . . .
. . . . only a fictional character. I have no idea of what his political beliefs are.
I just wish David Frum was, too.
-
Greenwald's case is why we should all join the ACLU
The case Greenwald makes is absolutely unassailable. Back in prehistory when I was in journalism school--and even in high school, I think--the quote most often hauled out to drive this principle home was Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Haven't heard this quote lately, not just because it's from a Frenchman but because free speech really is not very popular right now (*with one exception--see below) here in America, even if we don't (yet) have hideous laws like Canada's.
That unpopularity is why we should all join the ACLU, whose invaluable work does so much to keep this essential freedom green and viable in an often hostile climate.
(*The exception is the so-called free speech represented by enormous bags of cash spent on campaign commercials and ads designed to sway voter opinion. My gut says it's preposterous to equate corporate bazillions with individual utterance, but the courts so far have not agreed. And indeed, drawing a fair line that could separate genuine speech from bought-and-paid-for influence is a legal drafting problem to challenge a Solomon. Meanwhile, George Will et al go on praising to the skies the corrupt twisting of "speech" to include propaganda blasts from non-human corporate entities--and, thank God, the ACLU goes on defending genuine expression of opinion by actual human beings.)
-
Dirigo
And, who cares about the LSU flag anyway?
Fer cryin' out loud, Jeb?
Jebbie's honoring a bet. He's being gentlemanly. I will be honoring his chivalry, as requested, in due course. ;->
they're 'non-persons.'
Avoid contractions. "They are 'non-persons'." has more oomph.
-
@Dirigo
As president, how will you deal with the torture question which continues to harm our reputation in the world?"
Is there a way to work in the other countries and the human beings to contrast the "non-persons"? Something like:
As president, how will you face the world on torture -- will you pledge that all human beings be treated as "persons"?
or something.
-
@Ondelette
Good. That's a wrap.
-
@Ondelette & Pedinska
Ped: No contractions. Good (I've never had one me-self). Just kidding 'bout Jeb.
~~~
Ondo:
"The Washington, D.C. federal appeals court has told three former prisoners of Guantanamo prison - all British nationals - that they can't get a hearing on their allegations of torture at Gitmo because they are 'non-persons' - that they have no standing in court.
As president, how will you face the world on torture? Will you pledge that all human beings be treated as 'persons'?"
-
@antoine n
Doesn't seem quite as ominous and menacing as Glenn's characterization...
Spoken like a person who has never been prosecuted for a crime. In this case, a crime he may have been wrongly prosecuted for, if he gets a new trial and is found not guilty.
You really need to be in those shoes. Until then, you have no idea what "ominous" and "menacing" really mean.
-
Did I just say that out loud, Mr. Greeenwald, Sir?
Mr. Greenwald, You should have updated this thread pages and pages of comments ago. You've had several well-informed posters, Canadians all, convincingly point out the discrepancies between what they claim are the facts and the story as you tell it. They think your reaction to this mild inquiry into Ezra Levine's perfidy is excessive. And they provide you with information that has convinced me, and I'm hardly the gullible sort.
Yet you haven't updated your original post to reflect their challenges...
I recognize there's a lot of comments here, but I refuse to believe these apparently knowledgeable, though dissenting commenters have written posts you either haven't seen or felt the necessity to respond to because you thought them not worthy.
So what gives? You're normally so rational. What is it about this case or Levant and Steyn that could cause you to lose your objectivity?
You aren't being fair or objective with Canadians nor to our system of governance on this thread. Not. One. Bit.
As a matter of fact, I'd call your reaction uninformed, unreasonable and hysterical.
(Did I just say that out loud?)
-
What about hate crimes laws?
If hate speech laws are dangerous, are not hate crimes laws dangerous as well? Since the acts in question are already illegal, don't hate crimes laws come dangerously close to the criminalization of thought?
-
He’s a venomous snake
I posted this on another site but thought it worth reposting here: ( I know, I know, I know - who gives a shit what anyone not-an-American thinks?)
...This isn’t about state intervention or interference with the freedom of the press, you jackanapes! Robert explained that in a way that even cognitively challenged individuals like you should be able to understand, Jay.
It’s about Ezra Levant taking advantage of his position as a publisher to purposefully offend whole swaths of our world’s population because he thought it would boost the circulation of his lousy and boring magazine that nobody read while appealing to the worst instincts of his fellow travelers. Ultimately, his intention was to line his own pockets, but by doing so, he offended not only Muslims, but people like me too - all kinds of people disgusted by his nudge-nudge wink-wink racism and Zionist-centric bullshit. And now he’s offending us all over again with the disingenuous, whiny and self serving justifications he’s using to cloak his original bad intentions.
So… A Canadian citizen, one of those obviously offended by his deliberate and hateful actions, complained… and here we are - one small part of our system of governance attempting to get to the bottom of things in the way Canadians do it - systematically, calmly and as thoroughly as possible, given the demands placed on our system by those more interested in personal advantage than seeking fairness.
If anyone deserved to be hauled on to the carpet for his pernicious editorializing and outright lying - it was this snarly, snarky, I-Me-Mine prick.
Self-serving attention whores like him should be figuratively flogged in the public square for what he’s done and for why he did it - not celebrated as some beacon of free speech or noble sentiment. He’s a creep, plain and simple, and he deserves much more than the minor slap on the wrist this interview represented for the month after month of screeching and wailing about Islamofascists!!! and Muslim Terror!!! on his blog and, to a lesser extent, in his magazine.
He’s a venomous snake, Jay. And you’re a fool to defend him – even peripherally, through obfuscation.