I am adding them to our archives. First From Jeff GoldStein (who has a number of posts that I will need to track down unless he were to generously do the research for me?) we have:
Greenwald(s): “We are not the haters. YOU HATERS are the HATERS!â€
The fact that Greenwald(s) right here is arguing that the right side of the blogosphere is positively lousy with prominent sociopaths, while the left’s extremism and sociopathology is so rare that it must be sniffed out like truffles by determined smear merchants—is itself an example of a leading left-wing pundit engaging in the very kind of cartoonish hate-mongering he pretends to detest.
Eric Scheie notes a disturbing implication of Greenwald’s “principles.”
Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists
While I suspect most (but not all!) of the readers of this blog would call Glenn Greenwald unprincipled, in his mind he is quite the opposite. He answers to a higher set of principles, best known to him, and subject only to his own review. He wants what he wants, and those who disagree with him are in his mind murderous sociopathic, bloodthirsty, downright frightening right-wing authoritarians. The details of this demented argument are not especially worth my time, but it’s important to bear in mind that Greenwald (in conjunction with Sadly No) is making them about Glenn Reynolds, which I find deeply disturbing. Because if (and I mean if) we assume Greenwald really believes these things, then almost anything he does becomes justified.
How many of us would consider Count von Stauffenberg’s assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler to have been unprincipled? Very few. That’s because defeating murderous sociopathic fascism is a moral principle of the highest moral order. Thus, if Greenwald believes his vicious rhetoric, this makes him a moderate in comparison to the highly principled Count
von Stauffenberg.
Thanks for all that you do guys!
Technorati Tags: Glenn Greenwald, politics, extremism
powered by performancing firefox
Speaking of sockpuppets . . . where is Mona?
She says she will not come here any longer, though we got a trackback on the Michael Ledeen interview a few days ago. It seems I “revere him.” Talk about clueless.
Either she doesn’t read me and shouldn’t be making things up, or she does read me and can’t help but make things up, but also went back on her promise not to visit anymore.
She isn’t coming back here anymore. We know because she came back to tell us.
…of course she still tracks back, and emails lance and co, but she’s not commenting anymore, that’s the point.
Lance, mate, you really need to get a new hobby. The obsession with Greenwald is starting to look creepy
Nah,
I run across one, I put it up.
The last two I actually wrote which spoke of him were re-runs. The Ledeen piece from Sept. and I only put it up at the top again because Glenn linked to it. The second was the carnival, and it was just inspired to be reprised and turned into the carnival because of The Villainous Company piece. Just some fun.
I was actually surprised when I did the carnival and searched for stuff how little I had spoken of him. I think they stick out. As you can see if you look at the carnival I only put in a few from me. There were a few like the Ledeen piece about something else, but mention him for a few sentences. Three or four good fiskings and that was it.
So I was thinking he was under served after that. Anyway, now that I have started the project it would be irresponsible not to keep it up.
kav,
I was curious, so I searched the archives. The one who should really be worried is McQ. Boy, do we refer to him a lot.
Well as long as you aren’t rummaging through his garbage for cast off personal items to treasure you are probably ok…
Uh, I’ll talk to Michael, we can support each other and get through it.
If by “support” you mean that you are going to give me all your QandO relics, then we’ll get through this just fine.
I think this means that Michael is in denial Kav.