Confused “Neo-libertarian” Site Gets Free Speech, Well, Confused
(posted by Mona)
Poor Karl at the “neo-libertarian” blog Protein Wisdom waxes indignant — nay, verily scandalized — about Glenn Greenwald’s superb job documenting the many millions of dollars flowing from telecoms to lobby (and even personally benefit) members of both parties in the U.S. Congress. Greenwald addresses the (sarcasm alert!) coincidental relationship between said expenditures on the one hand, and on the other, a congresscritter’s support for telecom amnesty in the matter of the telecoms’ violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by joining with BushCo to secretly spy on Americans’ telephone and email communications without warrants.
Karl posits that Greenwald needs reminding :
…that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity under the First Amendment, part of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Why, yes it is! So is blogging a protected form of speech, as is the patriotic act of exposing what lobbyists are spending, who benefits, and the relationship to various pieces of legislation.
Most peculiarly — especially for a (*cough*) libertarian (*cough*) site — Karl then goes on to fault Greenwald for having defended a white supremacist in civil cases on First Amendment grounds, calling that “sleazy.” (Greenwald addresses his defense of the racist and anti-Semitic Matt Hale in the former’s interview with AoTP.) Say what? A “libertarian” blog dissing a lawyer for defending even the speech that most of us hate the most?
(And, oh, Karl: Greenwald has been entirely open about his involvement in fund-raising in the other direction — he’s linked to where one may contribute. He’s posted about it — and explained in comments — why he is not able to address the substance of negotiations he acknowledges being involved with, as to which elected officials will be targeted for their pro-telecom-amnesty positions. Any sentient being reading Greenwald’s site on anything like a regular basis would know he has been open about his involvement in raising funds to target pro-amnesty pols.)
You Protein Wisdom folk truly be some very weird species in the ‘tarian tent. And also none too cool in the reading-comprehension department.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Any sentient being reading Greenwald’s site on anything like a regular basis
…as if.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Gee Cowboy, I’ve been challenged by commenters in a vigorous, substantive way more than a few times, but you really overwhelmed me with fact and logic. [eyes rolling]
May 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
But aren’t cowboys known for their succinct and cynical wisdom?
May 25th, 2008 at 5:39 am
yep.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Cowboy - 1, Mona - 0
May 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
My post was not about Cowboy, who has yet to counter my meritorious criticisms of Karl’s illiberal screed.
May 25th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
“my post was not about Cowboy…” No it was about Gleen, who you have never taken exception to on substance, In fact, Mona, you have for years, gone to extraordinary efforts to defend Greenwald, destroying your own bona fide along the way.
Cowboy cuts through all, in a way that lays you flummoxed and flayed before our own alter of disingenuous rhetoric.
May 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
flayed before our own alter
That would be altAr. But in any event, what of the substance of my post, which pretty well smacks down Karl’s mindless diatribe?
Odd how none of the PW visitors care to address that…
May 25th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
BTW, Dain is more or less a regular here. I suspect you thought his irony was meant as a concurrence with Cowboy. Can’t speak for Dain, of course, but I sincerely doubt that.
May 25th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
It’s cruel to take Karl seriously in the same way it’s cruel to get in a fistfight with a retard.
May 25th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
thor writes: It’s cruel to take Karl seriously in the same way it’s cruel to get in a fistfight with a retard.
Perhaps, but civil liberties and especially Free Speech are of vast importance; Karl posts nonsense on the subject and none of the “libertarians” at that site call him on it.
And fact is, they are not “retards.” They are authoritarians in ‘tarian clothing.
May 25th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
The substance of your post, Mona, is nothing more than, “I really like Glenn, and really dont like when others make him out the fool…” Seems to be a cult of personality with you - I note your site’s special feature is about Glenn Greenwald.
Sad thing is Mona, you’d do better arguing your views, were you to leave out the ubiquitous Greenwald references (appeals to orthodox authority only impresses choir members).
May 25th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
The substance of your post, Mona, is nothing more than, “I really like Glenn, and really dont like when others make him out the fool…”
False, as anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills would appreciate — none of the PW faction have attempted to rebut my arguments.
Sad thing is Mona, you’d do better arguing your views, were you to leave out the ubiquitous Greenwald references (appeals to orthodox authority only impresses choir members).
Click my author name, and you’ll find most posts have zip to do with Greenwald. In fact, it seems the writer at PW and I are in substantial agreement about the FLDS raid — a subject I’ve been obsessed with, but which Greenwald has written about not at all.
Now, what did I get wrong in this post, hey bains?
May 25th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Further, Mona, what Karl is pointing out is that individuals and groups have every right to join together and try to make their now collective voice heard by government. Seems, in fact, it is you and Hero Glenn that are much more illiberally inclined - namely, you would silence those voices, those organizations, those industries with whom you disagree, for the merely disagreeing with you.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Pointing out a corrupt quid-pro-quo doesn’t mean anyone wants to silence either party to it. It just shows how crap the pro-amnesty argument is that one can’t imagine anyone taking it seriously without such an arrangement.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“False, as anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills would appreciate — none of the PW faction have attempted to rebut my arguments.”
Eric is that you? Eric?
Cartman!
When did your dumb ass fall in this tubey thing…
(an example of a less tired way to couch an ad hominem)
May 25th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
b-psycho points out to bains: Pointing out a corrupt quid-pro-quo doesn’t mean anyone wants to silence either party to it. That appears a bit too hifalutin’ an argument for bains, and he even missed my agreement in the post that corporations have the right to lobby. What he and his confrères refuse to address, is the merit of the free speech exercise of pointing out a corrupting quid pro quo.
May 25th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Interesting sleight of hand there Mona - and oh so helpful to your ever-changing narrative. Glenn wasn’t talking about quid pro quo, and neither was Karl.
Further, if you had any ingenuity, any insight, your insults would would breath of new air instead of canned Pleistocene.
May 25th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Glenn wasn’t talking about quid pro quo,
You poor illiterate thing! That is his main point.
May 26th, 2008 at 2:17 am
…that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity under the First Amendment, part of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And that would be the citizens whose rights have been violated by the telcoms at the behest of the executive in violation of the very constitution it is charged with upholding, correct? Because beyond that, I cannot see how the telcoms have yet to be aggrieved.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Mona, can’t say I agree with you all of the time, but this attack of the lemings thing is a bit weird. They’ve got words, and grammar, but steps 3 and 4 - internal logic and argument - are strangely lacking.