[Bacchus]

GQ has a pretty good interview with Glenn Greenwald about the Snowden leaks and the state of journalism today.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmake...table=true

A sample exchange:

Quote:

Q:How do you feel about the early presidential jockeying?

A: Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she's been around forever, the Clinton circle. She's a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She's surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she's going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It's going to be this completely symbolic messaging that's going to overshadow the fact that she'll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They'll probably have a gay person after Hillary who's just going to do the same thing.

I hope this happens so badly, because I think it'll be so instructive in that regard. It'll prove the point. Americans love to mock the idea of monarchy, and yet we have our own de facto monarchy. I think what these leaks did is, they demonstrated that there really is this government that just is the kind of permanent government that doesn't get affected by election choices and that isn't in any way accountable to any sort of democratic transparency and just creates its own world off on its own.

[RexImperator]

[Flint]

Quote:

Q:How do you feel about the early presidential jockeying?

A: Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she's been around forever, the Clinton circle. She's a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She's surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she's going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It's going to be this completely symbolic messaging that's going to overshadow the fact that she'll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They'll probably have a gay person after Hillary who's just going to do the same thing.

I hope this happens so badly, because I think it'll be so instructive in that regard. It'll prove the point. Americans love to mock the idea of monarchy, and yet we have our own de facto monarchy. I think what these leaks did is, they demonstrated that there really is this government that just is the kind of permanent government that doesn't get affected by election choices and that isn't in any way accountable to any sort of democratic transparency and just creates its own world off on its own.

Interesting he says that. Isn't he homosexual himself?

Good interview. Props to him.

[Sp5]

I had the opportunity to meet GG after he published his first couple of books. I told him he was a great American. He said thanks, it meant a lot because he got a lot of abuse.
I'm glad I told him that, my opinion has not changed. I've never seen him bullshit or pull any punches.

[Grit]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but whats with the trend of hoping that shitty people become leaders?

[Engineer]

(05-14-2014 04:20 PM)Grit Wrote:  

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but whats with the trend of hoping that shitty people become leaders?

Hopefully the pendulum will swing the other way, and soon.

[RexImperator]

"Hoping" or just "expecting" it will happen?

[Grit]

(05-14-2014 08:57 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

"Hoping" or just "expecting" it will happen?

Glen Greenwald Wrote:

I hope this happens so badly

I'm intentionally disregarding the rest of this sentence, because the level headed people out there don't need instruction, education, advice, points proven, or lessons taught. Yet here is Greenwald thinking Hillary should be a leader even for the level headed people.

Why not say, 'I hope Hillary has the same fate as an old soldier: she doesn't die, but just fades away.'

[Sp5]

It's going to be between Hillary and Jeb Bush. Nauseating.

[Pacific]

Speaking of Greenwald, he just published a new book: " No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State" this month. Should make for an eye-opening experience for those living in the US. I heard an interview with him on NPR and he talked about a few things from the book. I haven't read the book myself, but will probably get it at some point in the near future.

[runsonmagic]

The reason people hope for shitty leaders is because they hope things will get so bad that real violent change will occur.

"if it's leaning push it"

Really looking forward to reading his book. My copy is in the mail.

[RexImperator]

A new interview In Slate:

Quote:

What did you think of Trump’s press conference? You’ve gone after people who you thought were smearing those denying a Trump-Russia connection, and you’ve used the word McCarthyite to describe them. But now Trump has encouraged the Russians to find or release more Hillary Clinton emails.

OK, so, I am glad you asked about that because this is the conflict that I am currently having: The U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president. I don’t have an actual problem with that because I share the premises on which it is based about why he poses such extreme dangers. But that doesn’t mean that as a journalist, or even just as a citizen, that I am willing to go along with any claim, no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous it could be, in order to bring Trump down.

So, literally, the lead story in the New York Times today suggests, and other people have similarly suggested it, that Trump was literally putting in a request to Putin for the Russians to cyberattack the FBI, the United States government, or get Hillary Clinton’s emails. That is such unmitigated bullshit. What that was was an offhanded, trolling comment designed to make some kind of snide reference to the need to find Hillary’s emails. He wasn’t directing the Russians, in some genuine, literal way, to go on some cybermission to find Hillary’s emails. If he wanted to request the Russians to do that, why would he do it in some offhanded way in a press conference? It was a stupid, reckless comment that he made elevated into treason.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...hyism.html