I guess I'll have to read the Glenn's column to get some instances where Wolffe had, and didn't acknowledge, a conflict of interest. Until I do, I'll have to be scouring my internal tapes for times I thought he was sucking up to power. My superficial memory can't bring one up to me now.
I admire Glenn Greenwald. I think he over-writes by about 25%, but it's part of his wonkish knowledge to lay it all out. I appreciate his sincerity and his sense of justice in this compromised world. He has an intense sense of right and wrong, and is not afraid to offend powerful people in pointing it out.
Disappointed about Wolffe- I had rather liked him on TV. But I suppose Washington is full of whores, nothing new there.
@Baroness: Well said. GG's posts occasionally seem to be written in such a furious reverie of indignation that he skimps on the editing, but I am a loyal reader. I even flipped him a few nickels during his last fund drive so he could buy the equipment required for him to be more of a presence on American television from his home in Brazil.
@Iwillnotauditionforastar: Uh... What the fuck are you talking about? Greenwald is one of the few political bloggers who actually knows something about the law.
@Foster Kamer: I'm not saying you are wrong in your analysis.
I'm not saying Glen(n) is wrong in his analysis.
I'm simply making a qualitative analysis (geez, never expected to use that phrase on Gawker) based on my experience debating Glen(n) on multiple blogs that he is pushing this to destroy the agreement.
Keep the left/right shout machine going. Shame then rally the troops to continue. Just my opinion based on my experience.
Give me a sec to goog from 2006 for the perfect example.
@Iwillnotauditionforastar: One could say this about any kind of political criticism, that all it does it "keep the shout machine going." So what's the alternative, if we want to avoid such an interpretation? To never be critical?
@skt.smth: When I'm critical I'm clear about it. When some are critical they are disingenious about it.
This is just my personal opinion, but I prefer an open battle of ideas that lets people decide on their own.
Regardless of the outcome. My ideas win, YAY! My ideas lose, I sucked at presenting them or the ideas sucked. No biggee. The audacity of informed choice.
@Iwillnotauditionforastar: If he's correct and reporting stories other media can't or won't touch, why would his motives matter? I think it's very much in the interest of Fox News viewers and MSNBC viewers for him (for someone) to report this story. Same with his work on privacy and torture, both during Bush administration and continuing, sadly, under Obama.
I'm not sure if that fits your definition of altruism, but it does strike me as a mark of integrity, which is something I value a lot more than altruism in any case. Especially in a journalist.
I like the bow Gawker put on the picture. Very festive. I have seen more wieners than I care to think about on NYC subways. And I always laughed. It must be an ego blow to have a woman laugh at the wiener you are so proudly showing to her.
@TheUpMyAssPlayers: Huh. I've been here for about eight years but have never been flashed. Then again, I pay no attention to anyone or anything on the train, so maybe I just didn't notice it. That's probably must crushing of all to a subway perv.
08/03/09
08/03/09
Where you been, son?
08/02/09
08/02/09
But, yeah, Dan Bartlett? Really?
08/02/09
Disappointed about Wolffe- I had rather liked him on TV. But I suppose Washington is full of whores, nothing new there.
08/04/09
08/02/09
He never says anything without an ulterior motive. Probably to keep the feud going.
08/02/09
08/02/09
If you're a right-wing knob, just say that...
08/02/09
Glenn is only 20% superfluous letterage, while Wolffe is 33%, since he has that extraneous f and a silent e.
08/03/09
I stand by he's not doing it for altruistic reasons.
Stop. Go to MerriamWebster.com and learn those words.
Not one of them mentions the law. Awww. Don't cry about being spanked.
08/03/09
I'm not saying Glen(n) is wrong in his analysis.
I'm simply making a qualitative analysis (geez, never expected to use that phrase on Gawker) based on my experience debating Glen(n) on multiple blogs that he is pushing this to destroy the agreement.
Keep the left/right shout machine going. Shame then rally the troops to continue. Just my opinion based on my experience.
Give me a sec to goog from 2006 for the perfect example.
08/03/09
Send Glen(n) an e-mail and tell him to defend himself and we can have a mano e mano right here.
08/03/09
08/03/09
This is just my personal opinion, but I prefer an open battle of ideas that lets people decide on their own.
Regardless of the outcome. My ideas win, YAY! My ideas lose, I sucked at presenting them or the ideas sucked. No biggee. The audacity of informed choice.
08/03/09
08/03/09
I'm not sure if that fits your definition of altruism, but it does strike me as a mark of integrity, which is something I value a lot more than altruism in any case. Especially in a journalist.
08/03/09
08/04/09
You, on the other hand, are just kind of an ass.
07/06/09
07/06/09
07/06/09
Memo to the boys: Keep it in your pants, you fucking dirtbags!
07/06/09
07/05/09
07/05/09
07/06/09
07/05/09
07/06/09
07/05/09
07/06/09
07/06/09
07/05/09
07/06/09