@101 I read Greenwald between the lines. Anonymous bloggers could be Wendi Deng Murdoch amusing herself for all I know.

Posted by: dh | Nov 25 2013 17:11 utc | 103

“I can understand that Greenwald [claims to] want something “big” and not an anonymous website, but still this should pose a problem of conscience.”
Already has done – ambition won.

Posted by: foff | Nov 25 2013 17:20 utc | 105

Actually, Copeland not only that he was a centrist but I also predicted Obama’s presidency in 2005, which you may but probably don’t recall as the absolute nadir of US progressivism post W’s re-election and the confirmation of such swell guys as Rohn Joberts and Tony Scabrito (or wtf his name) to the SCOTUS bench, thus pretty much ensuring a Conservative judicial reign of Terror forever and ever amen (or so believed at that particular moment).
I’m pretty sure no one else was predicting Obama that at the time.
I saw Obama for what he was and still do thus avoiding the so-called great disapointment among so-called leftists. I never expected much beyond a slight tilt to port nothing more but like Nixon perhaps portending a sea change in the political zeitgeist long term.
For shore, that Bush SCOTUS certainly inflicted Citizens United on the body politic and guess what, Greenwald APPROVED the decision. Course he did.
My issue isn’t with Greenwald per se. I have called him on his bullshit many many times (and he really is completely full of it if you read his schtick carefully) and he occasionally deigns to respond like any garden variety unhinged lunatic in the threads, which is why I will always love him no matter what.
My issue is with the blogg floggers who dont read much of anything carefully and especially those who perhaps without realising it pass on the most inane rubbish to each other including GG’s occasional dishonesty, but also even worse (and I’ve noticed that happening hereto) out and out nutters such as Madsen and Giraldi.
Pepe I give a pass because he is at least infotaining, like GG. But never to be taken srsly. Like me, he is best viewed as an infoclown, obviously at a much higher level of erudite circusneity, Hey, you get what you pay for. Too many fucking CIA recruitment ads on that Asia Times for my taste…
But beware all ye who enter here: the noose is tightening around all of our necks while we play in the sandbox at fake punditry. We even manage to take sides in a big game of nothing where both sides in the real game are coming after us and ours.
Bet on it.

Posted by: donkeytale | Nov 25 2013 18:05 utc | 107

I don’t give an f who foff is but I find the reaction to his contrarian point of view pretty pathetic. Smells like Chardonnay Socialism to me. Puerile comments like “we,re not talking to you anymore” are quite risible.

Posted by: DM | Nov 25 2013 21:12 utc | 109

@110 Absolutely correct! Well done foff. All the more reason not to fall in love with anonymous bloggers.

Posted by: dh | Nov 26 2013 12:51 utc | 111

clearly you’re interested in Who said it rather than what was said. That’s hero worship.
I’m more interested in the content.

Posted by: foff | Nov 26 2013 14:02 utc | 113

Seems you’re railing against how the web has developed. The ability to publish/comment [semi] – anonymously has been a feature from the start.
++++++++
PayPal Is a Huge Weapon for the Powerful

I’ve written recently about what ought to be deeply disturbing aspects of Pierre Omidyar’s new journalism venture: see here and here. My primary focus has been — and remains — on the fact that Omidyar, as the 123rd richest person on the entire planet, wields an extraordinary degree of power. He is now allied with Glenn Greenwald, who proclaims that a crucial part of his mission is

“to reinvigorate journalism through ‘an aggressive and adversarial position to political and corporate power,’

an undertaking he will pursue through a new online publication backed with $250 million from the eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar …”
I’ve pointed out that this formulation (from a NYT article I excerpted) is entirely accurate — and it is also absolutely ludicrous.
To believe that one of the leading oligarchs in the world is going to engage in a prolonged, public act of suicide by funding journalists who will call into question the basic structure of a system that permits him (and a few sanctified others) to accumulate this degree of wealth and power is to believe in the Tooth Fairy and that wishing will make it so

+++++++++++++++++++++
The Doctrine of Exceptionalism Extends Its Reach

If we apply Greenwald’s own methodology to his new venture — if, that is, we utilize the methodology which Greenwald tells us has brought him to the point where Omidyar finds it valuable and in his self-interest to go into business with him — aren’t we required to ask the questions Greenwald asks of all those who exercise power on a significant scale, but now ask those questions about Greenwald and Omidyar?

Posted by: foff | Nov 26 2013 16:05 utc | 115

@Mina: You’re really cracking me up with this stuff. haha. I’m seeing Rowan in a new light.
@rest:
Seems like in this thread you have most people saying: “we can judge this for ourselves, look at the track record, make decisions”
And one jack foff saying everything he can to discredit something before it has even taken shape, even trying to discredit people taking the most mild of “wait-and-see” stances towards it. And of course we can look at foff’s own track record and see that it isn’t really surprising at all that he would press this point.
Rowan seems to me to have the best take. Whatever it is, it is coming, another new field to harvest. Everyone separates the wheat from the chafe and uses any nourishment within as best we can. Just as always.
The only threat I see is the co-option of energy of Occupy/Anonymous Movement which will be this venture’s natural audience. But to believe that Greenwald’s aim is a malicious co-opting you’d have to believe that Snowden is either a complete rube and a yutz. And the fact that he did something so fucking smart makes that pretty unlikely.
Unless he’s a fraud or a plant. But there isn’t much evidence for that either, especially considering the gravity of the exposures.
But hey, everyone has their own conceptions and stereotypes. If foff wants to think Greenwald is a fucking no good asshole (even though he can’t provide anymore reasons than any of us who are saying ‘wait and see’ haven’t already noted), who cares really. It’s just one more obvious right-winger crapping on something of possible value for completely transparent reasons.

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 27 2013 4:13 utc | 117

#117
Said the Godwinite liar with no integrity.
Your track record so far seems to consist of a lot of screaming, lying, and all round childish tantruming that others dare to express alternative viewpoints. The fallacies put forward by you and your ckique, to distract, would make a Rumsfeld blush

Posted by: foff | Nov 27 2013 10:20 utc | 119

Guest
When you think about it, no Wee, no Livebox, and the 30 years old girl who didn’t go to school writes letters without any grammar or orthograph problems (here: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/444859/Trapped-in-a-web-by-evil-monsters-Prisoner-wrote-letter-of-appeal-to-neighbour)!
Maybe the Maoist guy should run for presidency (ah yah, sorry, in Scotland, that is, when they get independent next year…)
But somehow I can’t really figure Rowan visiting Brixton.

Posted by: Mina | Nov 27 2013 10:44 utc | 121

foff,
I pointed to the NYT stating they were Muslims while such thing did note appear in any of the other articles. That’s very different (but that’s a well-known “trend” in the NYT).
I was saying ‘fishy’ because I did not understand why they were allowed to walk out free. So I wondered if they were diplomats (usually it is Gulf diplomats who are allowed to walk freely, especially in the US/UK, after committing crimes).
My understanding now is that they are still free because no legal complaint has been filed. The guy “had a sect”, and people gave him money freely. He didn’t attack underage people, nor did he abuse them sexually, so he is free.
By the way, you’re really full of s…t, but that’s only a personal impression. I am not under the influence of other people who would have expressed the same feeling, or am I? Well, it was all in the pseudo you chose for yourself, uh?

Posted by: Mina | Nov 27 2013 16:09 utc | 123

I can assure you mina, the feeling is thoroughly reciprocated, completely mutual

Posted by: foff | Nov 27 2013 23:32 utc | 125

ever heard about dumped down muricuns,
its impossible to miss them, less than 5 min of surfing will gaurantee to net tons of such specifies…
like tim n johnny here 😮
http://endthelie.com/2013/11/25/china-lashes-out-at-us-for-interfering-in-territorial-dispute-with-japan/#comment-85685

Posted by: denk | Nov 28 2013 7:19 utc | 127

Regarding Scahill – even the Catholics find him revolting. London Catholic Worker Collective are calling him out for disgraceful attack on Agnes Miriam, the nun he shunned, due to attend an anti-war conference in London recently.
Scahill, Mr Brave Death-Defying “Anti-War” Nun-Shunner himself, was accused of mounting /participating in

a staged attack on Mother Agnes by those who wish to see intervention in the Middle East, with more US boots on the ground

Essentially Schaill has been accused of being a fake. He claims to be against the war on Syrians, but one of these people at the London Catholic Worker Collective (probably Aussie anarchist and friend of Assange, Ciaron O’Reilly) has just accused him of being in the pro-intervention (pro-NATO) camp.

solidaritycollective
November 26, 2013 at 9:56 am
Three participants of the Solidarity Collective met with Mother Agnes on Sunday the 24th of Nov and Monday the 25th, One person reflects on that meeting
“On Monday I went to Giuseppe Conlon House to meet with Mother Agnes as part of a small group. There wasn’t many of us there and the meeting which was scheduled for 1 hour went on quite a bit longer.
I first became aware of this story on the 17th of Nov, I had seen it floating around twitter but hadn’t really been focused on it. So for more than a week now I have been researching Mother Agnes and the criticisms she has been facing.
Hand on heart I have been unable to find anything to back up the allegations made towards her, in fact if we take one of those allegations, that she is Pro Assad: I managed to find one reference to a letter she sent to a French newspaper which was critical of Assad and his treatment of prisoners and injured, now this letter was written in Nov 2011 and its very likely that she was speaking directly of protesters
I feel this has been a staged attack on Mother Agnes on those who wish to see intervention in the Middle East, with more US boots on the ground
The lesson I came away with, was a very simple one. Hands off Syria, means hands off Syria, and that applies to everyone and not just governments”

Posted by: foff | Nov 28 2013 11:54 utc | 129