Letters to the Editor
-
-- ShawnWM@ "Better look twice in his closet and I mean his political background and ask some tough questions."
Thanks for opening my eyes. I wish I could say that we've simply been played as useful idiots but it's beyond that.
We've been duped into gathering at Salon in one of the greatest counterintelligence ploys since the Cheka set up The Trust - their phony anti-Bolshevik front group intended to bring together and monitor and identify and eventually bring down the true counterrevolutionaries.
That's exactly what's going on here. I'm sure Walsh and Kamiya and all the rest are involved in this elaborate deception, but only one person is capable of masterminding this and it isn't Karl Rove - we're being manipulated by Glenn Greenwald, the Felix Dzerzhinsky of our time.
-
It should have been a non-sequitur, but then....
Also, I meant to point out that free-market libertarians would have a private property owner install all the rules he/she wanted to install. That is what ownership means.
So, if a private outfit like Salon decided not to allow neo-Nazis twits to post at Salon; that is what laissez-faire capitalism promotes. This is in response to the one or two comments of the collectivists who still willfully miss-characterize the idea of freedom. -- bucky1The Love Canal of liberty. Priceless.
The problem is one of scale, bucky. We haven't solved it, but neither have you. Does it matter to a wage-slave if it's the gummint or Wal*Mart which winds up being the guardian of his voluntary associations?
So, bucky, you'd recommend Glenn police UT to your specifications? This doesn't sound like a friend of liberty to me. No doubt it'd make the place more comfortable for you, but not necessarily for Glenn, and it certainly doesn't comport well with the idea that things which make you uncomfortable are not, by that definition alone, unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.
L.W.M. has said, and produced quotes from other people which said that there's a vein of authoritarianism running through much of what purports to be libertarian thought. I agree; I've noticed it myself. Mona would no doubt say that this isn't true of all libertarian thought, and perhaps she'd be right. It does seem to true of your thought, though. No so-called nanny state I'm aware of gives justifications for tidying up after unruly people much different from those you offer in the quote above.
Aren't you at least a little embarrassed by the coincidence?
-
THAT'S THE FACE OF YOUR "NEW" DEMOCRATIC PARTY
at work: The Obama-Rama supporters who preach one thing about bi-partisanship, reaching across lines, etc., but can't seem to reach members of their own Party! What a joke.
-
-- Rambling Rose 22
Would it be possible that you be a tad more specific?
What the hell are you talking about?
-
Nobody asked me but...
To be honest I don´t get GC either. I remember him from the UT days as little brother or something like that but I have never understand him. But so what, I just scroll past.
What really annoys me are the constant Bucky/Sinnard/adnoto/a[whatever] vs. L.W.M./Timbermann flame wars. The volume of posts is higher and I can`t just scroll past, after all sometimes there are substantial post of these authors.
But I fear there are no easy solutions to these flame wars and I must endure what I cannot change.
-
@ Sozialdemokrat
Since my name was mentioned, I'll offer you my take. It's understandable that you'd be annoyed by some of what passes between commenters here, including me and the others mentioned, but controversy inevitably involves personalities, and in an open forum, one can rarely choose one's adversaries.
For myself, I try to avoid giving egregious offense, but I don't believe that it's possible to avoid controversial or provocative opinions, especially when they seem relevant to the topic. It's also not enough, in my opinion, to cheerlead non-controversial views -- GWB is a bad president -- and avoid another commenter's shibboleths -- Ron Paul is the only honest person running for president -- not if you want a fruitful discussion.
Some commenters do manage this somehow, others don't. It is, as you say, regrettable when threads devolve into contentless and bitter sniping, but to avoid it altogether, the host might have to engage in a sort of intellectual neutering process in his comment threads which so far Glenn, to his credit, has refused to do.
For my own part, I've resolved to try avoid responding to the personal as far as possible, but when an author is ego-involved in his content, this can be tricky. In any case, I sympathize to a degree with your distress, and will do what I can to minimize it.
-
@WT
The people who need to read GC the most are the ones who don't get him. They should probably read the so-called "flame wars," too.
Reilly,
I can't be sure anymore but I'm sure that's snark. Great snark!
-
Grrr.
I emailed and phoned Pelosi about this 'compromise' of hers, and made it QUITE clear (politely, but very sternly) what I think of the idea. I live in SF, so I hope she listens just a little.
-
Ryan:
Can't we just pretend these people don't exist, and start our own USA with our own rules and regulations?
It's so sad what's happened to this country. I for one would love to leave it for good. Trouble is, no one wants Americans (unless we're rich enough to buy our way into another country).
-
-- L.W.M.
It was. Thanks. What else can you do with that kind of absurd insinuation?
I agree with your comment to WT about GC and the "flame wars".
Flame wars. Insight. Humor. G.C.'s poetry. Snark. We've got it all here. Personally I love about 99% of it. Makes it hard to leave sometimes and attend to the chores and other reading material. The classroom may get a bit unruly at times but where else can you find this many extraordinarily bright classmates?
-
@Reilly
We've been duped into gathering at Salon in one of the greatest counterintelligence ploys ...we're being manipulated by Glenn Greenwald, the Felix Dzerzhinsky of our time.
Wow. That's a bit disconcerting.
The many progressive, muckraking sites online-- Greenwald@salon, kos, firedoglake, TPMMuckraker, etc... have been instrumental at helping to check the rampant abuses of power foisted on us by the thugs running the executive branch. Exposing the US attorney scandal, defeating the dreadful nomination of Hans A. Von Spakovskyto the FEC, halting telecom immunity (so far)... the list goes on. If, in the end, it turns out that they were only a means to round us all up, then so be it.