MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Before Glenn Greenwald was the journalist who broke and defended the most important story of 2013, he was many other things: an underage South Florida politician, a lawyer at a high-powered corporate firm, Kips Bay’s most combative tenant, and even the legal arm of his business partner’s gay porn distribution company.
Comments
This from the article describes perfectly why I am not a fan:
“If Glenn feels he’s right about something, he doesn’t care if the entire world hates him,” said David Elbaum, who worked for Greenwald’s law firm a decade ago.
I don't tend to like warriors, whether they use violence or not. I trust those people who are willing to express doubt the most.
by artappraiser on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 3:32pm
I don't really have a problem with that. I'm somewhat put off by Greenwald's style, but I read enough contrary view points that I can weigh them and express the doubts my self. Most articles leave out pertinent information that contradicts the reporter's view. Most are biased.
I'm no slouch in the amount of news I read but you seem to leave me in the dust. I often wonder how you find the time. Even more than me, I would think you'd be more than capable of weighing the evidence from several biased articles to express your own doubts and reach independent conclusions.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 4:52pm
Legal bully was what came to mind while reading the article. Crusader maybe, but warrior? Never.
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 5:05pm
Did they note that his abandoned dogs are mistreated Dobermans? He teaches them to be vicious again. He is a lawyer, after all.
Funny, I've never read a profile of Tom Friedman or Glenn Beck or Josh Marshall or Ezra Klein or Andrew Sullivan, none of whom interest me or who I agree with much. Somehow it feels irrelevant, whether they saved kittens from drowning or toilet-papered the neighbor's lawn. Is what the write interesting, accurate, informative, useful? Who even notes anymore that Arianna Huffington was some right-wing freak until after she divorced her husband and finished her crusade against Clinton - now she has one of the most popular "liberal" sites, all's forgotten.
In the current scandal, Greenwald didn't dig out this story - Snowden came to him, though I figure it's credit and compliment for Greenwald's hard-hitting columns on human rights & security the last 8 years. Is he too mean & combative? Well, probably someone has to be - not like there are too many people in government being pleasant & cooperative. But more important is the quality of the information, not whether his style is combative or not.
Anyway, how about that PRISM scandal? The EU doesn't seem to happy. Seems a bit of a surprise that all mail envelopes are now correlated with all call records. What other info is mashed up inside their huge Big Data crunchers? Stay tuned for next press leak...
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 6:23pm
I don't know, to stick to your principles even if the whole world hates you for it sounds like a noble stance to me.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 08/29/2018 - 9:39pm
Doesn't it depend on what your principles are? Does the whole world hate Greenwald because of his principles and his persistence in sticking to them or because he's a nasty prick who constantly insults people? Is it his principles that piss off people he debates or that he's willing to misquote, quote out of context, and out right lie about his opponent because winning seems to be his primary goal? It's hard to separate them. it seems to me winning at any cost is his highest principle and degrading those he debates is a close second. So I suppose people do hate him for his principles but sticking to them doesn't seem like a noble stance to me.
eta: I've been thinking about this recently in regards to Ben Shapiro who portrays himself as an intellectual and a rationalist. Greenwald and Shapiro while as far apart in political and cultural views are essentially the same in manner. After watching a dozen of so Shapiro videos I noted he spends a lot of time insulting liberals and those insults are what gets him the most applause. Do people like him because of the intellectual rigor of his arguments or because he's sticking it to the left? Do people on the left hate him because he destroys their positions with rationality and his superior intellect, as he claims, or because he's constantly insulting them?
by ocean-kat on Wed, 08/29/2018 - 10:47pm
They are both lawyers. It's just the ultimate usage of the adversarial/advocate system they are trained in. For the system to work, the truth is supposed to be somewhere inbetween the two narratives, both of which are spin. But instead, and unfortunately, mho, outside a jury room with a judge instructing them, most people make that a horse race and pick either Clarence Darrow or William Jennings Bryan as their favorite to root for, bet on and support.
The British press basically follows the adversarial system, and therefore so did we until the mid 20th century, with a tradition of preaching and spinning according to political ideology and rooting for one side's spin or the other. Then we tried to do this new thing called professionalism journalism, where the journalists act as jury rather than advocate pundits. That lasted until Ted Turner left cable TV news. Ratings showed people seem to want their pundits and their spin and their wrestling match as much as they claimed they liked Walter Cronkite or the Beeb or NPR.
And truth be told, we are all complicit, as we all like to rate political debates as to "won" or "lost". The insulting and name calling just amps up the game.
After reading this, it confirms for me why Greenwald is extra irritating. Seems like it's not really his base nature, he has to amp up his nervous system to be the vicious debater with passionate belief, with the perfect curt dismissals of the other guy. You can see the stress, this is why he is extra disturbing, and he takes a long time to unwind from doing it and has difficulty shutting it off. I.E. has to wean himself off twitter.
by artappraiser on Thu, 08/30/2018 - 12:27am
P.S. Compare real intellectuals who were not lawyers, like say William F. Buckley on the right and Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the left. Or really, any of the historians or even professional intel people that appear as commentators on cable tv news. Yes, they all have their slant but basically they don't do lawyer style advocacy, they do analysis and discuss analysis and are open to input. The lawyers nearly all just always stand out as practicing advocacy, unless they are asked to analyze the legal work of another and like to do that sort of thing, it's only then they seem to take the advocacy cap off.
Edit to add: it is interesting that the early blogosphere was very much along the advocacy model, where a bunch of fans would follow the spin of some guy or gal very good at spinning their preferred point of view. Everyone who wanted to got their 15 minutes of spinmeister fame and often loved to slag insults at the "jerk" on the other side of the spectrum and the peanut gallery would cheer them on. Frat boys style, i.e.., Drezner is a bleeping jerk pissant., Palast blows smoke out his ass, Drum is a idiot, Billmon is a genius.... Greenwald was right there in those days, was part of that, hasn't changed that much.
by artappraiser on Thu, 08/30/2018 - 1:06am
This is why I don't like driftglass. I can get a good laugh at an insult and when driftglass gets on a roll he tears people apart. He's a great writer and absolutely brilliant at it. But that's all he does and it got old fast. There's no analysis. I never learn anything. Hitchens can be very insulting and his insulting quips are very clever and funny. Occasionally he can go over board but most of his talks are really good arguments to support his views. Even Buckley got annoyed at times and could lash out but the vast majority of the time he was making arguments to defend his views. Sam Harris never loses his cool. He always tries to respond to the arguments others make, never any obfuscation or avoidance, with good arguments of his own. Agree or disagree, I want mostly good analysis and good arguments on what ever topic we're discussing. That's what I try to do. I can get annoyed and insult but I'd like to think that most of my comment is a good argument or analysis despite the occasional insult.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/30/2018 - 2:55am
Looks like the French intelligence agency has nothing on the NSA regarding surveillance. Predictable.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 7:36pm
Predictable is right. It was the French, after all, that said after 9/11, "We're all Americans now" .
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 8:56pm
There are many evils that go on in the US, but not every evil is the fault of the US.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 10:35pm
I have yet to hear of one 'evil' revealed in the PRISM 'scandal'.
Unless you consider logging metadata, done by every internet giant, every business that is able to, every bank, credit agency and insurance company.....as 'evil' if the government also does it.
Greenwald today:
The NSA revelations continue to expose far more than just the ongoing operations of that sprawling and unaccountable spying agency.
The NSA is totally accountable to Congress. It's not accountable to Greenwald.
No part of any government in the world is accountable to Greenwald, although his usual targets are the US, and Israel, whose government he recently equated with Assad's, even in the bloodbath of Syria today.
Apparently any restrictions by Congress of the NSA program would run the risk of drawing responsibility for a failure to 'keep us safe' in the event of, say, a successful underwear bomber.
by NCD on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 11:32pm
My evils were the ones of States' Rights used to justify voter suppression and vaginal probes for women. Wars waged based on corrupted rationale (Iraq) also get included. How far the government can go in viewing data will be decided in court. Corporations will go uninhibited. I am always amazed when installing software that companies feel free to bundle anti-virus or other software and often seem very interested in becoming my default browser or music player. Companies feel my computer is their personal property.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 12:15am
Greenwald writes for The Guardian now. Do you often find yourself saying "The NSA is not accountable to the New York Times" on the rare occasion the Times does some reporting?
We can skip the word "evil" and just take examples of what citizens might want to know.
While apparently the post office has been scanning envelopes a long time, the use of OCR means they have a huge searchable database of From, To and Date. The recent improvements in data analytics & Big Data means it's trivial to compile that into categories - especially if you link it to Facebook and collected phone metadata - who your friends are, where you work, where you bank, who you call, what organizations you're involved with. Depending on who's sending you mail, they can figure out if you're having credit problems, health issues, seeing a psychiatrist, getting a divorce.
Oh, those license plate scans? One time might not say much - but aggregate over time, and we know which way you go to work, any clubs you frequent, where you go for lunch, what sports you play, where you drove on vacation last year and when you came back. Those Thursday 1500-1600 drives to a hotel? Looks like might be an affair - yep, we have that other license plate that's going there at those times too - let's see who that is... Uh-oh, she was just at an abortion clinic. Flag! Now maybe that's old school, because they also have phone companies turning over location records for your mobile phone - we can be pretty sure it was you driving that car, not your spouse.
Of course they can grab all your banking & credit card information, and they have your tax info and employer ID. Emails would be nice - let's just get all the email headers going through Google, Microsoft, Apple, Comcast... Nice - we have all those identities, can sync it up with what you buy on Amazon, who you friend on Facebook, and with a bit more cooperation from your ISP (or just the big data taps we have at all the internet exchange points), we can tie this to what Web sites you go to, any anonymous posts you might have made on a blog, and whether you use encryption sometimes, which might give us the idea you have something to hide, so we can search further. Of course we can figure out the kind of porn you or your kids like and classify your political leanings. Hey, little Jimmy's been chatting on one of those grow-light and mushroom kit sites - guess we'll be talking to him downtown soon.
Oh, now that everyone has their photos on-line in some form, this isn't faceless data gathering anymore - we've got you and family and friends all tagged and collated with appropriate metadata. Plus we can coordinate those street, bank & ATM cams with your cellphone, and do a bit of visual analytics if we need a bit of confirmation.
How long can we keep all this information? Theoretically there are a few limits, but in practice, forever. Which is good, because there may be new methods we come up with in 6 months or 2 years that allow us to squeeze more info out. After all software and processing and visualization tools keep getting better and better.
Oh, did I mention? - it's all legal! That's right, the NSA isn't doing anything wrong, Congress approved, we haven't even started talking FISA courts yet, so let's stop talking about this. Happy 5th of July, the Day After. [BTW, if you ever misplace your keys, you know who to call - it's not intrusion - it's a safety net!]
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 2:10am
Oh come on, now you're getting paranoid. They can't track everybody. Its just terrorists and its necessary to keep us safe.
Now if you were say, protesting the keystone pipeline. A lot of those environmentalists are domestic terrorists so we got to keep an eye on them.
And those peace and antiwar groups, lets keep track of all of them. Remember the Weathermen? Anyone of those antiwar groups could be terrorists.
Down on the border where I live there's the Samaritans and No More Deaths giving out water to illegals, sure most are probably just coming across to pick vegetables. But some could be terrorists. Have to keep an eye on those border groups just in case.
And Occupy groups and civil rights groups and people protesting about abortion rights and voting rights and anyone else making a stink and disturbing the status quo.
But not everybody. So calm down and just relax. What's on TV tonight, some good basketball game?
by ocean-kat on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 3:21am
Oh shit, you got me - I read the first line and thought it was NCD. Anyway, lest I waste the Googled quotes....
"They can't track everybody. Its just terrorists and its necessary to keep us safe." - Apparently you missed the contents of Snowden's release and Clapper's apology - the metadata from PRISM is on everyone, not just terrorists. The US Post Office is scanning the cover of *every single piece of mail*. For any of us talking abroad,
"Under the FAA, the government can eavesdrop on emails and phone calls made or received by Americans, as long as they reasonably suspect those conversations to include at least one person residing outside of the United States."
And from Verizon at least for one quarter - assume it's all providers for the last 10 years and foreseeable future, "Now the Obama administration is invoking the Patriot Act's Section 215 -- as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- as the basis for a secret court order demanding Verizon records that show originating and terminating phone numbers, their location, time and duration."
But you're right, it's protecting our freedoms. I'm concerned about those eco-activists spiking my Humvee.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 4:08am
Seriously this time, they can't track everybody. They can and they do collect information about everybody. They have their programs to extract information from a data base that includes everybody. But they can't track everybody. There's just not enough workers to track everybody. The programs are used to chose the perhaps 1% or maybe only .1% they will track.
So who is going to be in that .1%? Some will probably be terrorists. Historically though, not just 50 or 100 years ago but even in the last decade, who did they track? Who did they chose to take a closer look at? Often its been those who stir things up and challenge the status quo. Its been the environmentalist groups, the civil rights groups, the antiwar and peace groups. See what they have in common? They're all progressives working for change.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 4:44am
I'm less talking about workers tracking than I am about technology tracking and spitting out info and indictments and apprehension orders at light speed. Workers are deathly slow compared to a speech-to-text algorithm searching for a set of dangerous keywords in different languages and then triggering a content analysis to see if the speech rises above a certain level of threat.
In terms of network speeds, disk speeds, cloud computing, more power-efficient processors, the shift to GPU & co-processor, improved analytics, etc., it's just a matter of (short) time. Below is the push to exascale by end of decade. That's an exponential scale on the left, and as long as we exclude video and use character recognition for most images and docs, most people's yearly useful digital trails can probably be stuffed in 100Gigabytes max. Maybe 10 Gigabytes if it's just compressed location data, emails, blog posts, and digitized voice data.
As for storage, the recent breakthroughs in 3D chips and HAMR storage (the latter better for write once, read many - like someone's history - means it's likely there can be a 60Terabyte disk in 3 years which would cover say 6000 people, so say 60,000 disks to handle everyone in the US if 100GB/person - 6000 disks if you low-ball with 10GB/person. That's getting few enough to put in a few racks managed by some fast search processor with next generation I/O tech. The newer SSD drivers are much much faster for read-write, but still too expensive for such a scaled application. Maybe by year 2020?
From the last graph (all of these from The Register) you can see improvements in transfer time of data around the world just from one vendor's solution.
These are just some of the technologies pulling together to make what we've got written in this legislation (and the absurd ways the executive branch is interpreting it - even Sensebrenner is outraged, ironically or sadly) very scary indeed much faster than many people would assume. (no, your home computer isn't improving that quickly)
I'm still waiting for the sewage monitors that will tell who's home when and whether they're awake (though the thermal pattern you give off from your house is technically not protected either, so may be a simpler method to differentiate adults from kids and maybe use different volume of methane emissions to tell who's who in Beaver's house. By the way, all that falls under machine-2-machine or smarthomes, the technology that's been supposed to make us all happier in our residential nirvana, but like many a tech, can and likely will be used against us. Actually, all of this makes the mistake of assuming the NSA doesn't have early releases of all this tech paying above-commodity prices, so that this could be their actual capability now. (they had optical disks long before CDs became commoditized). N-Joy
[oops - from 2 years ago, IBM was already doing something like this, but the scale I'm talking about is much more capacity for fewer devices and less energy consumption:
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 8:15am
Congress should set clear reasonable rules for the NSA.
And Congress should re-do with precision the law about tax free 'social welfare' tax eligibility.
Big corporations write the laws for their bought and owned shills in Congress, and big corporations don't give a crap about the NSA or reducing chicanery at election time.
So the fat cat lobbyists aren't going to spend an iota of time or money pushing Congress to do anything on this. The people would have to do it.
The American voter. They don't trust government, so they let the fat cats that do trust it own it. They vote in the GOP who pledge to make government even less responsive to anyone but the rich.
US voters, too dumb to not elect pol's backed by big money and big BS. America did, of course, re-elect George W. Bush, Republican liar and War President.
In the meantime, there are not indictments coming down at light speed from metadata. If there was real NSA malfeasance, Congress would jump into action and investigate the administration from top to bottom. In the meantime there are a hundred other issues more important to the health, welfare, and future of the people in this country than a bunch of hard drives drown in terabytes of data in Utah.
by NCD on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 12:30pm
"If there was real NSA malfeasance, Congress would jump into action and investigate the administration from top to bottom." - sure, like they did after the Wall Street meltdown and the mortgage theft "robosigning" crisis and the rigging of the LIBOR rates and....
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 1:32pm
5 years later China has facial recognition on everyone (w a million detained Uighurs?) and Indians are doing identity implants. For some reason we can't do police video, but for citizens, sure...
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/30/2018 - 1:17am