House of Eratosthenes

As of the 13th of July, two days before my fortieth, Glenn Greenwald was “some lawyer asshole”. It’s thirteen days later, I’m an old man, and “Greewald” is an Internet verb. Or a noun, maybe. The dictionary has exploded just a little bit more, or my horizons have been expanded, or some combination of those two. If you have a care about which one is the case, form whatever opinion you will; I declare all disparate conclusions to be equally worthy. Wiki has a rather impressive article on Counselor Greenwald, which links to video at Think Progress, promising a debate between Greenwald and law professor Robert Turner. In what I saw, only Greenwald spoke, so no debate was forthcoming.

Which is worthy of comment, because Greenwald is addressing a point of law that certainly is debatable, and a plurality of liberal bloggers and thread-posters have chided me while educating me on the notion that the Greenwald point of view is the point of view, definitive, unanswerable, incorruptible. No debate is possible. This is why it would be interesting to see what the other fellow has to say, which, sometime, I’ll have to see if I can’t get ahold of the entire video. Anyway, with his words being the be-all-end-all, no debate being possible, this is why Greenwald is being attacked…

…which brings us to why Greenwald’s name is fast becoming an official augmentation to the English Language. When, where, and on what basis is Greenwald being attacked? Well, I should tease some background on this, because although nobody ever reads my blog, the few people who do come by, are known to be studious folk who are willing to plod through a few paragraphs if there’s a point to them — but may be as unfamiliar as I am, when it comes to rapidly-evolving “innernets” terminology.

To recap: Greenwald did a funny thing.

Your background story is in many places, but I think the best summary exists here at Patterico’s blog. Patterico uses exerpts of other Internet denizens to make his point; you’ll have to click the link and go to his page, to read the exerpts.

See if you see any similarities between the following comments, from three completely different people. (Or are they?) Listen to their amazing praise for the great Glenn Greenwald…and note how similar all the comments sound.

First, we have this comment on Ace�s blog, from “Ellison”…and this comment on Dan Riehl�s blog, from a completely different person named “Sam Mathews”…and this comment on Jeff Goldstein�s blog, from a completely different person named “Wilson”…Boy, we sure do have a dedicated Glenn Greenwald fan there.

Or should I say “fans”? Because these comments are, after all, from three completely “different” people. Again: the first comment is from a guy named “Ellison.” And the second is from a different guy, named “Sam Mathews.” And the third is from a different guy still � one named “Wilson.”

But here�s the weird part: they all sound so very similar! All of these various fans of Glenn Greenwald seem very familiar with his curriculum vitae. And they seem to emphasize the same points. His New York Times best seller. His amazing success in just 9 months of blogging. The fact that Senators read from his blog during Senate hearings! The fact that he breaks stories that appear on the front pages of newspapers!

And here�s the very weirdest part of all: Ellison�s IP address is the very same IP address as that of one Glenn Greenwald. [emphasis in original]

Patterico goes on to provide what eventually becomes a roadmap to Greenwald’s alleged shenanigans…which include using “sock-puppetry” to e-mail himself, i.e., “I e-mailed Greenwald yesterday about this, and asked Greenwald if it was true. This is what I just received in response.” Heh. Anyway, as thorough a job as Patterico has done to get this all jotted down, the saga just wouldn’t be complete without WuzzaDem’s sock-puppet show about Greenwald and his sock-puppetry codswallop. It’s a riot. Don’t miss. Click to view.

So anyway, where was I going with all that. Ah, yes. Greenwald used his high posture and weighty moral authority to talk down to Jeff Jacoby about what a “chickenhawk” is supposed to be. Now, I’m sure you’ve heard this term before if you haven’t been living in a cave; I’m sure you’ve got a good idea of what it means. Well, you don’t. Greenwald is re-defining it on the spot, and hoping nobody notices, or if they do, they wilt like a shrinking violet before his towering stature.

In sum, Greenwald was doing what we, here, at The Blog That Nobody Reads, talk about quite a lot. He was telling his followers what to think.

And for this, he got busted at Right Wing Nut House. Pretty soundly. Again, you have to click the link to get the exerpts…

…instead of addressing the meat of Jacoby�s argument, Greenwald once again raises the bar by redefining the term and restructuring the chickenhawk narrative so that it can be applied in as broad a manner as is possible:…That last part of Waldo�s “definition” � “Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness” � is a brand spanking new addition to the word�s meaning. And it was appended to the original meaning by none other than the Great Waldo Sock Puppet himself (or one of his many admirers).

How do we know? This is a cached version of the Wikpedia page defining the term “chickenhawk” from just two days ago (7/23)…Here is the Wikpedia definition as seen today � after more than 50 revisions to the entry in the last 24 hours…

Go on, click it open. It’s quite amazing. And amusing.

For the record, Greenwald’s opinion that actually started all this, on the illegality of President Bush’s wire-tapping program (Think Progress video, above), is…well, I think it’s most accurate to call it the least weak out of all the other stuff he’s been flinging up. To say it is unanswerable, is overstating things, to say nothing of being unhelpful in my point of view. And to say it is so unanswerable, that the unanswerability is the reason poor Greenwald is being picked-on, well, I probably addressed that best in a FARK thread recently. I said to call this statement bovine poo, was an insult to bovine poo. Why I said that, should be obvious — the man has been sock-puppetting, and he got thoroughly busted for it in front of everyone. It’s like pissing yourself a full barracks while you’re wearing paper-bag pajamas, and then being strung up by your ankles, while digital cameras pop away. No other reason to pick on the guy, other than the unanswerability of his arguments? Pul-LEAZE.

This could very well have been yet another “What Is A Liberal?” posting. Greenwald plus his real fans, as well as his sock puppets, have been providing a lot of instructions to people lately of the “How DARE you criticize Glenn Greenwald” variety, and the “Don’t you know who he IS?” variety. That’s what got Greenwald in trouble with the sock puppets…these phantoms reciting the same curriculum vitae over and over again (from the same IP address). Greenwald’s argument about George Bush, like I said, has some merit — although his argument over the meaning of “Chickenhawk” doesn’t. If he would simply run through the merits of his argument, as Jacoby has done with his, instead of indulging in this Don’t-You-Know-Who-Glenn-Greenwald-Is nonsense, none of this would have happened.

Sadly, that’s the way today’s liberals see things now. It’s like a big ol’ game of chess. A certain piece is a “Queen” — and I don’t mean that as a disparaging remark about Greenwald’s sexual orientation, I mean it in the literal sense, as it pertains to the game — able to move in any direction, superior to all others on the board. And that’s just the way the rules are. Everyone playing the game, should respect the rule. And so the liberals deliver the smackdown, be they flesh-and-blood, or hand-in-sock, to anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the Greenwald piece can move seven spaces in eight directions, because, after all, that’s the “rule.” Move the pieces without respecting the rules, and you must be corrected, else you might disrupt the game. You might call it the MENIMOHDA doctrine — ad homimen spelled backwards. You make an argument that may have merit, or it may not have merit, and I can use the “classic” ad hominem to disparage you and thus avoid exploring the argument. Or, I could use MENIMOHDA to put you on a pedestal, again, to avoid exploring the argument. That’s what the sock puppets did. And the real fans too…I’m sure there were some of those in the mix.

Beyond that, I have nothing more to add. Other than that in my own dealings with people, as well as my research into historical events about people, this seems to be the most potent and influential way to make a bad decision. Some guy, somewhere, has a really cool CV, including credentials that are beyond reproach. So no other chess piece can take him down, no matter what; the political repercussions of doing so, or of trying to do so, are simply too great. Well, that isn’t the way real chess is played, and this kind of chess-playing seems to lead to trouble more often than not.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… XIVWednesday, July 26th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… XIV
Wednesday, July 26th, 2006