This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/22/glenn-greenwald-second-q-and-a
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Glenn Greenwald's second reader Q&A: the highlights | Glenn Greenwald's second reader Q&A: the highlights |
| (6 months later) | |
| We have formatted some of the questions and answers from Friday's Q&A with Glenn Greenwald. In some cases the questions have been paraphrased, and the answers have been edited to eliminate typos and add clarity. Jump into the comments below to join the discussion: | We have formatted some of the questions and answers from Friday's Q&A with Glenn Greenwald. In some cases the questions have been paraphrased, and the answers have been edited to eliminate typos and add clarity. Jump into the comments below to join the discussion: |
| On Iraq | On Iraq |
| There is a lot of discussion in alternative news media regarding holding those in power accountable for everything from the Iraq War to extrajudicial detentions and assassinations. Are there any legal grounds that could be used to hold mainstream talking heads, or the outlets they work for, accountable for duping the American public? justinpw | There is a lot of discussion in alternative news media regarding holding those in power accountable for everything from the Iraq War to extrajudicial detentions and assassinations. Are there any legal grounds that could be used to hold mainstream talking heads, or the outlets they work for, accountable for duping the American public? justinpw |
| Depending on who you mean, it's likely that whatever they do to serve political power and the lies they tell would be protected by free speech and free press guarantees, so I'd have to say no. Holding accountable the people who actually perpetrate the crimes would be a good start. Those who support and advocate for them them should probably face shame, disgrace, and a loss of credibility and standing. | Depending on who you mean, it's likely that whatever they do to serve political power and the lies they tell would be protected by free speech and free press guarantees, so I'd have to say no. Holding accountable the people who actually perpetrate the crimes would be a good start. Those who support and advocate for them them should probably face shame, disgrace, and a loss of credibility and standing. |
| I'm surprised to have seen you run the simplistic Iraq oil narrative when a much deeper reading of the conflict which clearly had a multi faceted approach within American politics is clearly warranted. cbarr | I'm surprised to have seen you run the simplistic Iraq oil narrative when a much deeper reading of the conflict which clearly had a multi faceted approach within American politics is clearly warranted. cbarr |
| I expressly said on several occasions that I do not believe oil was the only factor driving the war. Indeed, I dismissed such a claim as overly-simplistic. | I expressly said on several occasions that I do not believe oil was the only factor driving the war. Indeed, I dismissed such a claim as overly-simplistic. |
| Oil is always one major factor of several whenever the West engages in military action in oil-rich countries, and that was certainly true of Iraq. But it was far from the only significant factor. | Oil is always one major factor of several whenever the West engages in military action in oil-rich countries, and that was certainly true of Iraq. But it was far from the only significant factor. |
| On drones and US foreign policy | On drones and US foreign policy |
| The Obama administration (CIA, DOD, etc) is perfectly aware that drone strikes (a) kill many civilians, (b) incite extraordinary hatred towards the U.S., yet they continue and in fact are expanding usage. Why do you think they continue knowing full well drones are doing anything but keeping-us-safe? ChicagoDaveM | The Obama administration (CIA, DOD, etc) is perfectly aware that drone strikes (a) kill many civilians, (b) incite extraordinary hatred towards the U.S., yet they continue and in fact are expanding usage. Why do you think they continue knowing full well drones are doing anything but keeping-us-safe? ChicagoDaveM |
| Four main reasons: | Four main reasons: |
| (1) It's by far the politically safer course. Launching drone strikes carries almost no political cost: Americans don't care how many people the US Government kills as long as they're Others and it's mostly kept hidden. But if there were a new Terrorist attack, or even if there isn't, Obama's failure to use drones would be perceived as a political liability. | (1) It's by far the politically safer course. Launching drone strikes carries almost no political cost: Americans don't care how many people the US Government kills as long as they're Others and it's mostly kept hidden. But if there were a new Terrorist attack, or even if there isn't, Obama's failure to use drones would be perceived as a political liability. |
| (2) Cowardly presidents don't stand up to the National Security State and the intelligence community. Many of them insist drones are necessary, so it's easy to capitulate. | (2) Cowardly presidents don't stand up to the National Security State and the intelligence community. Many of them insist drones are necessary, so it's easy to capitulate. |
| (3) At this point, I think there are many perceived benefits for power factions from the ongoing War on Terror - I wrote about them here - and I think that the way drones extend that war by ensuring more and more people hate the US is, at this point, a feature for many, not a bug. | (3) At this point, I think there are many perceived benefits for power factions from the ongoing War on Terror - I wrote about them here - and I think that the way drones extend that war by ensuring more and more people hate the US is, at this point, a feature for many, not a bug. |
| (4) On some level, I assume that Obama believes that killing people with drones is justifiable and wise. | (4) On some level, I assume that Obama believes that killing people with drones is justifiable and wise. |
| Also, Netanyahu allegedly apologized to Erdogan over the IDF attacking and raiding the Mari-Marvara. But, Obama didn't seek an apology for the deaths of US citizens Furkan Doğan who was also killed in that raid or the brutal death of US citizen Rachel Corrie. What do you think Israel would have to do to get the US to cut it loose? ASNYC621 | Also, Netanyahu allegedly apologized to Erdogan over the IDF attacking and raiding the Mari-Marvara. But, Obama didn't seek an apology for the deaths of US citizens Furkan Doğan who was also killed in that raid or the brutal death of US citizen Rachel Corrie. What do you think Israel would have to do to get the US to cut it loose? ASNYC621 |
| That was a very revealing incident for me. The fact that the Israelis killed Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara was a major source of acrimony and tension with Turkey, as it would be with most countries: normal, healthy governments object when a foreign army kills their citizens. | That was a very revealing incident for me. The fact that the Israelis killed Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara was a major source of acrimony and tension with Turkey, as it would be with most countries: normal, healthy governments object when a foreign army kills their citizens. |
| But the US never uttered a peep of objection over the fact that Israelis killed Americans. In fact, Hillary Clinton did the opposite: basically signaled that the Israelis were welcome to do it again with the next flotilla. | But the US never uttered a peep of objection over the fact that Israelis killed Americans. In fact, Hillary Clinton did the opposite: basically signaled that the Israelis were welcome to do it again with the next flotilla. |
| That shows how US government officials are often more loyal to the Israeli government than to the welfare of their own citizens. | That shows how US government officials are often more loyal to the Israeli government than to the welfare of their own citizens. |
| Glenn, you wrote the other day about the anticipatory prosecution of Hamid Hayat. I have a few questions about the case: | Glenn, you wrote the other day about the anticipatory prosecution of Hamid Hayat. I have a few questions about the case: |
| 1) Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction for material support for terrorism, do you know if his lawyer(s) are planning to appeal his case to the Supreme Court? If so, do you think his challenge will be successful? Do you think they will even agree to hear the case, or will the Obama Administration try to shut it down by invoking the concept of state secrets? | 1) Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction for material support for terrorism, do you know if his lawyer(s) are planning to appeal his case to the Supreme Court? If so, do you think his challenge will be successful? Do you think they will even agree to hear the case, or will the Obama Administration try to shut it down by invoking the concept of state secrets? |
| 2) How is the entire notion of anticipatory prosecution even legal? What legal grounds can the state use to prosecute someone for crimes they haven't even committed? Didn't Brandenburg v. Ohio state pretty clearly that unless you can prove that a crime is definitely imminent, you can't prosecute someone for practicing violent speech? SuperBowlXX | 2) How is the entire notion of anticipatory prosecution even legal? What legal grounds can the state use to prosecute someone for crimes they haven't even committed? Didn't Brandenburg v. Ohio state pretty clearly that unless you can prove that a crime is definitely imminent, you can't prosecute someone for practicing violent speech? SuperBowlXX |
| I don't know for sure, but I'm confident saying that they intend to first ask the full 9th Circuit to review the case - especially since they had one dissenter who is well regarded - and, failing that, to seek Supreme Court review. | I don't know for sure, but I'm confident saying that they intend to first ask the full 9th Circuit to review the case - especially since they had one dissenter who is well regarded - and, failing that, to seek Supreme Court review. |
| The history of the federal courts in the post-9/11 era when it comes to Muslims and accusations of Terrorism has been disgraceful. No institution has more severely abdicated its responsibilities to check Executive Branch excesses and safeguard individual liberties than the federal judiciary. | The history of the federal courts in the post-9/11 era when it comes to Muslims and accusations of Terrorism has been disgraceful. No institution has more severely abdicated its responsibilities to check Executive Branch excesses and safeguard individual liberties than the federal judiciary. |
| The theory used by courts has been that when the FBI manipulates someone into a Terrorist plot they previously evinced no inclination to undertake, it's not "entrapment" because the defendant must have had had some preexisting inclination or else they wouldn't have done it. | The theory used by courts has been that when the FBI manipulates someone into a Terrorist plot they previously evinced no inclination to undertake, it's not "entrapment" because the defendant must have had had some preexisting inclination or else they wouldn't have done it. |
| Indeed, in one case, the federal judge rejecting an entrapment defense acknowledged that "Only the government could have made a 'terrorist' out of [the defendant], whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope," but she rejected his entrapment defense anyway. | Indeed, in one case, the federal judge rejecting an entrapment defense acknowledged that "Only the government could have made a 'terrorist' out of [the defendant], whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope," but she rejected his entrapment defense anyway. |
| Over and over, federal judges have acknowledged that it is the FBI who made them terrorists, yet still find them guilty and reject their entrapment defense. It shows how far federal judges are willing to go, how dishonest they are willing to be, to find in favor of the Government against Muslims. It's a disgrace of historic proportions. | Over and over, federal judges have acknowledged that it is the FBI who made them terrorists, yet still find them guilty and reject their entrapment defense. It shows how far federal judges are willing to go, how dishonest they are willing to be, to find in favor of the Government against Muslims. It's a disgrace of historic proportions. |
| In your opinion, how dangerous is AIPAC? FulanoZutano | In your opinion, how dangerous is AIPAC? FulanoZutano |
| The policies they help maintain - particularly lock-step US support for all Israeli actions - are dangerous indeed, because - among other things - they maintain high levels of anti-US animosity around the world and, as David Petraeus once said (before sheepishly walking it back), undermine US foreign policy goals and even help fuel terrorism. People who oppose these policies need to develop the organizational and financial clout that AIPAC has to influence policy-makers. | The policies they help maintain - particularly lock-step US support for all Israeli actions - are dangerous indeed, because - among other things - they maintain high levels of anti-US animosity around the world and, as David Petraeus once said (before sheepishly walking it back), undermine US foreign policy goals and even help fuel terrorism. People who oppose these policies need to develop the organizational and financial clout that AIPAC has to influence policy-makers. |
| Should we cheer or fear the possible, if not eventual, collapse of the American empire in terms of its economic and military dominance? bujinin | Should we cheer or fear the possible, if not eventual, collapse of the American empire in terms of its economic and military dominance? bujinin |
| The events leading to such a collapse would likely entail misery and suffering for many people, which isn't something to cheer, but the end of US military dominance and the maintenance of a US empire is certainly something to cheer. | The events leading to such a collapse would likely entail misery and suffering for many people, which isn't something to cheer, but the end of US military dominance and the maintenance of a US empire is certainly something to cheer. |
| It's too hard to predict what the consequences would be, too many variables. Usually, major political transformations and collapses of hegemonic states bring about lots of suffering and instability, but there's a wide range of how awful it could be. | It's too hard to predict what the consequences would be, too many variables. Usually, major political transformations and collapses of hegemonic states bring about lots of suffering and instability, but there's a wide range of how awful it could be. |
| My question is what do you propose the government do about Gitmo? If their home countries won't take them back, then where should the prisoners go? jbhuskers22 | My question is what do you propose the government do about Gitmo? If their home countries won't take them back, then where should the prisoners go? jbhuskers22 |
| It's almost never the case that their home countries won't take them back. In fact, the majority of detainees now there (or close to a majority) are Yemeni, and the Yemeni government has long publicly said they wanted them back (because it's become a political controversy there). The Yemeni dictatorship is a puppet regime of the US and would take them back if we dictated that. There are all sorts of other countries subservient to the US that would do the same. | It's almost never the case that their home countries won't take them back. In fact, the majority of detainees now there (or close to a majority) are Yemeni, and the Yemeni government has long publicly said they wanted them back (because it's become a political controversy there). The Yemeni dictatorship is a puppet regime of the US and would take them back if we dictated that. There are all sorts of other countries subservient to the US that would do the same. |
| If all else failed, then I think the US, as a country which abducted them and imprisoned them thousands of miles away from home, has the obligation to let them remain in the US if they cannot be convicted of any crime. | If all else failed, then I think the US, as a country which abducted them and imprisoned them thousands of miles away from home, has the obligation to let them remain in the US if they cannot be convicted of any crime. |
| I'd be interested to hear what you think a sensible policy on terrorism would be. What would it look like, what changes would it entail? Drew Zalucky | I'd be interested to hear what you think a sensible policy on terrorism would be. What would it look like, what changes would it entail? Drew Zalucky |
| I think we should stop (a) going around the world killing whomever we want; (b) propping up dictators to do our budding; and (c) blindly supporting everything the Israeli government does, as that would go a long way toward gutting the fuel of anti-American terrorism. | I think we should stop (a) going around the world killing whomever we want; (b) propping up dictators to do our budding; and (c) blindly supporting everything the Israeli government does, as that would go a long way toward gutting the fuel of anti-American terrorism. |
| I'm fine with reasonable security measures at home, including legal surveillance based on probable cause search warrants. If we have evidence that someone is plotting terrorist attacks, we should arrest them, indict them, and charge them with crimes, and then punish them only if the state proves their guilt in a fair trial. | I'm fine with reasonable security measures at home, including legal surveillance based on probable cause search warrants. If we have evidence that someone is plotting terrorist attacks, we should arrest them, indict them, and charge them with crimes, and then punish them only if the state proves their guilt in a fair trial. |
| What do you make of the fact that drone strikes have come to a practical standstill in Pakistan and Yemen in the last couple of months? Smartypants32 | What do you make of the fact that drone strikes have come to a practical standstill in Pakistan and Yemen in the last couple of months? Smartypants32 |
| First, the premise of your question is a massive overstatement, to the point of being simply false. Indeed, you picked a really bad day to make this claim - from the NYT today: "Four people have been killed in northwestern Pakistan in an American drone attack on a vehicle, government officials said on Friday." | First, the premise of your question is a massive overstatement, to the point of being simply false. Indeed, you picked a really bad day to make this claim - from the NYT today: "Four people have been killed in northwestern Pakistan in an American drone attack on a vehicle, government officials said on Friday." |
| Moreover, in early January - just two months ago - there was a serious spike in drone strikes. One in late January in Yemen killed six people. | Moreover, in early January - just two months ago - there was a serious spike in drone strikes. One in late January in Yemen killed six people. |
| Over the past four years since Obama's drone-happy attacks began, there have often been periodic lulls for reasons having to do with internal political events in the targeted countries or in the US. Just last week, the top UN Human Rights investigator found that drones strikes violate Pakistani sovereignty because the government simply no longer consents. | Over the past four years since Obama's drone-happy attacks began, there have often been periodic lulls for reasons having to do with internal political events in the targeted countries or in the US. Just last week, the top UN Human Rights investigator found that drones strikes violate Pakistani sovereignty because the government simply no longer consents. |
| But to claim that drone strikes have come to a "practical standstill" is absurd, as I'm certain you will now acknowledge. | But to claim that drone strikes have come to a "practical standstill" is absurd, as I'm certain you will now acknowledge. |
| Bradley Manning | Bradley Manning |
| Is there actually any legal/legitimate basis upon which the government can justify not allowing the public to have access to Bradley Manning's statement that he made in court? avelna2001 | Is there actually any legal/legitimate basis upon which the government can justify not allowing the public to have access to Bradley Manning's statement that he made in court? avelna2001 |
| No. They imposed no restrictions on how journalists could report it - including making a full transcript, as one did - so I don't see how it can be justified to block access to the statement. If Manning revealed classified information in the statement, then that could be legitimately suppressed, but nobody claims he did that. | No. They imposed no restrictions on how journalists could report it - including making a full transcript, as one did - so I don't see how it can be justified to block access to the statement. If Manning revealed classified information in the statement, then that could be legitimately suppressed, but nobody claims he did that. |
| Has anyone asked the NYT why they neglected to report the audio recording of Bradley Manning at his pre-trial? Hamann | Has anyone asked the NYT why they neglected to report the audio recording of Bradley Manning at his pre-trial? Hamann |
| I've tweeted it several times, and lots of NYT reporters and editors follow me on Twitter, but I guess they just chose not to answer. My guess is that they'd say that they reported on the statement when it was made and don't see the release of the audio adding much - though lots of other media outlets that also reported on the statement originally found cause to report on the audio tape. | I've tweeted it several times, and lots of NYT reporters and editors follow me on Twitter, but I guess they just chose not to answer. My guess is that they'd say that they reported on the statement when it was made and don't see the release of the audio adding much - though lots of other media outlets that also reported on the statement originally found cause to report on the audio tape. |
| Was there debate at Freedom of the Press Foundation over whether or not to publish the Manning recording? AudioKinetic | Was there debate at Freedom of the Press Foundation over whether or not to publish the Manning recording? AudioKinetic |
| There was debate, but that was appropriate. It was a big step for the group, especially since its stated mission upon formation was to support others engaging in transparency journalism, not to do it ourselves. There were also legal factors and journalistic issues to consider, so there was a vibrant debate internally among the Board members and I'm glad there was. It made the rightness of the decision to do it that much more definite. | There was debate, but that was appropriate. It was a big step for the group, especially since its stated mission upon formation was to support others engaging in transparency journalism, not to do it ourselves. There were also legal factors and journalistic issues to consider, so there was a vibrant debate internally among the Board members and I'm glad there was. It made the rightness of the decision to do it that much more definite. |
| Everyone in that organization is a truly committed and passionate advocate of transparency. Simply by being involved in a group devoted to circumventing the government's ability to block funding for groups it dislikes, they are all taking a risk. I'm really excited by this new organization because, given the people involved and their proven ability and willingness to take these risks, I think we can really achieve a lot. | Everyone in that organization is a truly committed and passionate advocate of transparency. Simply by being involved in a group devoted to circumventing the government's ability to block funding for groups it dislikes, they are all taking a risk. I'm really excited by this new organization because, given the people involved and their proven ability and willingness to take these risks, I think we can really achieve a lot. |
| A key tactic in effecting excessive punishment in most of the cases you've covered recently has been lengthy pre-trial detention. Can you discuss how this tactic is used, why it is used and why it is so deeply wrong in a democratic society? FluffytheObeseCat | A key tactic in effecting excessive punishment in most of the cases you've covered recently has been lengthy pre-trial detention. Can you discuss how this tactic is used, why it is used and why it is so deeply wrong in a democratic society? FluffytheObeseCat |
| That's probably too complicated for this venue, but it's long been the case that people who can't afford bail remain in prison without any conviction, while those who can are able to go free. I'm not saying that there are never times when pre-trial detention is warranted, but it's wildly over-used and has become a form of punishment for those who have been convicted of nothing. | That's probably too complicated for this venue, but it's long been the case that people who can't afford bail remain in prison without any conviction, while those who can are able to go free. I'm not saying that there are never times when pre-trial detention is warranted, but it's wildly over-used and has become a form of punishment for those who have been convicted of nothing. |
| There is literally no power more dangerous than allowing the state to punish people without due process and a fair, adversarial proceeding to determine guilt. | There is literally no power more dangerous than allowing the state to punish people without due process and a fair, adversarial proceeding to determine guilt. |
| Glenn, in your recent speeches -- such as at Yale this past month -- you've addressed the critical importance of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. At the same time, you defend individuals such as Bradley Manning, and appear sympathetic to individuals associated with Anonymous (without your ever advocating illegal hacking). | Glenn, in your recent speeches -- such as at Yale this past month -- you've addressed the critical importance of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. At the same time, you defend individuals such as Bradley Manning, and appear sympathetic to individuals associated with Anonymous (without your ever advocating illegal hacking). |
| The rule of law, then, must not mean one should follow every law no matter what it is, and do so always, regardless of circumstances. | The rule of law, then, must not mean one should follow every law no matter what it is, and do so always, regardless of circumstances. |
| Could you explain, then, how you conceive of the rule of law rather than of men in light of law-breakers whom you defend? MonaHol | Could you explain, then, how you conceive of the rule of law rather than of men in light of law-breakers whom you defend? MonaHol |
| To me, the rule of law means that the same rules are applied equally to everyone regardless of power, position and prestige. | To me, the rule of law means that the same rules are applied equally to everyone regardless of power, position and prestige. |
| My objection to things like the Manning case isn't based on the view that he broke no laws. It's based on the view that people who undertake political acts against government interests are subjected to the harshest and most unforgiving punishments even for trivial transgressions, while those who advance the government's interests or otherwise wield power in it are shielded from punishment for more serious offenses (torturers, illegal eavesdroppers, bankers, telecoms, etc.) | My objection to things like the Manning case isn't based on the view that he broke no laws. It's based on the view that people who undertake political acts against government interests are subjected to the harshest and most unforgiving punishments even for trivial transgressions, while those who advance the government's interests or otherwise wield power in it are shielded from punishment for more serious offenses (torturers, illegal eavesdroppers, bankers, telecoms, etc.) |
| That is a repudiation of the rule of law, not an affirmation of it. Indeed, it's the ultimate repudiation. | That is a repudiation of the rule of law, not an affirmation of it. Indeed, it's the ultimate repudiation. |
| In a world where torturers, illegal eavesdroppers, bankers, and telecoms were punished for their crimes, I'd have no objection to prosecuting Bradley Manning. The nature of civil disobedience is not that you claim the right to break the law without punishment, but that you deliberately subject yourself to punishment as a means of protesting unjust laws and practices (though even then,I'd still vehemently object to the excessive punishment and the dangerous theories used to prosecute him). | In a world where torturers, illegal eavesdroppers, bankers, and telecoms were punished for their crimes, I'd have no objection to prosecuting Bradley Manning. The nature of civil disobedience is not that you claim the right to break the law without punishment, but that you deliberately subject yourself to punishment as a means of protesting unjust laws and practices (though even then,I'd still vehemently object to the excessive punishment and the dangerous theories used to prosecute him). |
| But we're not in that world. We're in a world where the most powerful are able to commit the most egregious crimes with impunity. That's because the law is exploited as a weapon to shield and entrench power, and severely punish those who challenge it. | But we're not in that world. We're in a world where the most powerful are able to commit the most egregious crimes with impunity. That's because the law is exploited as a weapon to shield and entrench power, and severely punish those who challenge it. |
| Other | Other |
| Is there any particular reason you do not focus on the Syrian situation in great detail? LDoherty | Is there any particular reason you do not focus on the Syrian situation in great detail? LDoherty |
| There are all sorts of vital issues I don't write about much or even at all, and that's usually true for several reasons. In general, those include: time constraints, a lack of expertise, ambivalence, the fact that others are saying everything I would want to, a belief I couldn't make an impact, the opportunity costs of focusing on that topic versus other topics, etc. | There are all sorts of vital issues I don't write about much or even at all, and that's usually true for several reasons. In general, those include: time constraints, a lack of expertise, ambivalence, the fact that others are saying everything I would want to, a belief I couldn't make an impact, the opportunity costs of focusing on that topic versus other topics, etc. |
| As for Syria, US involvement there has been relatively minimal. But it's a very complicated case and passions and emotions are very high, so it's the kind of issue I avoid unless and until I'm able to give it the attention it deserves and feel a reason to do so. I've often cited As'ad AbuKhalil as a great source on all matters Middle East and - without adopting all or even most of what he has said - he covers Syria almost every day and does it very well. | As for Syria, US involvement there has been relatively minimal. But it's a very complicated case and passions and emotions are very high, so it's the kind of issue I avoid unless and until I'm able to give it the attention it deserves and feel a reason to do so. I've often cited As'ad AbuKhalil as a great source on all matters Middle East and - without adopting all or even most of what he has said - he covers Syria almost every day and does it very well. |
| Following up on your discussion of Zero Dark Thirty: what are your thoughts, more generally, on the relation between art and politics? PfeilZeit | Following up on your discussion of Zero Dark Thirty: what are your thoughts, more generally, on the relation between art and politics? PfeilZeit |
| That's too complicated a topic to answer in this format, but I will say this: I don't think art has to have political objectives. I don't think even art which deals with political themes is required to make overt political statements or take definitive political positions. One function of art is to provoke thought and debate, prod at assumptions and the like and that can be achieved with ambiguity, without having to be didactic. | That's too complicated a topic to answer in this format, but I will say this: I don't think art has to have political objectives. I don't think even art which deals with political themes is required to make overt political statements or take definitive political positions. One function of art is to provoke thought and debate, prod at assumptions and the like and that can be achieved with ambiguity, without having to be didactic. |
| But when art purports to state political truths, then it should be held accountable on the same terms as everyone else: if what it purports to be true is, in fact, false, then that is a serious deficiency and the fact that it is "art" does not remotely justify that. | But when art purports to state political truths, then it should be held accountable on the same terms as everyone else: if what it purports to be true is, in fact, false, then that is a serious deficiency and the fact that it is "art" does not remotely justify that. |
| I'd also add that this term "art" seems to be one of those ambiguous catch-all terms used to justify all sorts of unjustifiable things. I'd like a clearer definition of what is meant when this term is invoked and what it includes and does not include. | I'd also add that this term "art" seems to be one of those ambiguous catch-all terms used to justify all sorts of unjustifiable things. I'd like a clearer definition of what is meant when this term is invoked and what it includes and does not include. |
| Do you ever find yourself too frustrated and tired that you are merely "railing against the machine"...a voice in the wilderness...that nothing ever changes or improves...? johncecil123 | Do you ever find yourself too frustrated and tired that you are merely "railing against the machine"...a voice in the wilderness...that nothing ever changes or improves...? johncecil123 |
| Anyone devoted to political change gets periodically frustrated because change is always slow, always a grind, often imperceptible, and always happens more slowly than you think the injustices demand. | Anyone devoted to political change gets periodically frustrated because change is always slow, always a grind, often imperceptible, and always happens more slowly than you think the injustices demand. |
| But I can point to lots of ways that I think I've had an influence in bringing attention to issues that were otherwise ignored, even changing some things. When I go on speaking tours, or every day by email, there are all kinds of people, including Muslims and others, telling me that the work I do is important to them personally because they feel like I'm giving a voice to lots of people who don't have one. That is incredibly gratifying and, by itself, provides more than enough incentive to keep working harder. | But I can point to lots of ways that I think I've had an influence in bringing attention to issues that were otherwise ignored, even changing some things. When I go on speaking tours, or every day by email, there are all kinds of people, including Muslims and others, telling me that the work I do is important to them personally because they feel like I'm giving a voice to lots of people who don't have one. That is incredibly gratifying and, by itself, provides more than enough incentive to keep working harder. |
| Hi Glenn, Why are you, Obama, and Netanyahu all wearing blue ties? Was there a sale? moishe | Hi Glenn, Why are you, Obama, and Netanyahu all wearing blue ties? Was there a sale? moishe |
| As my partner is extremely fond of pointing out, I don't have a very good fashion sense - some type of deity must have mischievously tinkered with my gay gene before implanting it - so I tend to look to Bibi, Barack and other militaristic world leaders and follow their lead. | As my partner is extremely fond of pointing out, I don't have a very good fashion sense - some type of deity must have mischievously tinkered with my gay gene before implanting it - so I tend to look to Bibi, Barack and other militaristic world leaders and follow their lead. |
| Glenn, have you ever considered running for elected office and do you feel you can be effective as a member of the US congress with regard to the issues you are most passionate about like civil liberties? Georgi Ch | Glenn, have you ever considered running for elected office and do you feel you can be effective as a member of the US congress with regard to the issues you are most passionate about like civil liberties? Georgi Ch |
| I ran for office when I was 17 - the local City Council where I grew up - and came in 4th out of 5 candidates (the top 3 vote-getters, all incumbents, won) - I actually got the endorsement of the local newspaper, the Fort Lauderdale/Sun Sentinel (here) - here's an amusing article about it if you're interested. | I ran for office when I was 17 - the local City Council where I grew up - and came in 4th out of 5 candidates (the top 3 vote-getters, all incumbents, won) - I actually got the endorsement of the local newspaper, the Fort Lauderdale/Sun Sentinel (here) - here's an amusing article about it if you're interested. |
| But now I think I can be more effective without trying to figure out how not to offend voters. | But now I think I can be more effective without trying to figure out how not to offend voters. |
| Who wins: Sartre or Nietzsche? Jeff Falzone | Who wins: Sartre or Nietzsche? Jeff Falzone |
| The latter wins against pretty much everyone, in my view. | The latter wins against pretty much everyone, in my view. |
| One of my pet peeves is the cliched, vapid view that Nietzsche is the province of angst-ridden college students. He's one of the greatest thinkers in the history of human communication. His brain was so big that it actually just exploded. | One of my pet peeves is the cliched, vapid view that Nietzsche is the province of angst-ridden college students. He's one of the greatest thinkers in the history of human communication. His brain was so big that it actually just exploded. |
| Can you present any kind of concrete, real-world strategies for overcoming all these issues detailed above, beyond vague, pie-in-the-sky platitudes like "humans can change human institutions"? Daldude | Can you present any kind of concrete, real-world strategies for overcoming all these issues detailed above, beyond vague, pie-in-the-sky platitudes like "humans can change human institutions"? Daldude |
| I answered this the last time. It seems like people want some pat, glib answer to the "what-can-I-do-to-stop-this?" question. I definitely understand the temptation, the desire for that, but that's not how political change works. There are no easy answers that fit into a three-step Powerpoint presentation. | I answered this the last time. It seems like people want some pat, glib answer to the "what-can-I-do-to-stop-this?" question. I definitely understand the temptation, the desire for that, but that's not how political change works. There are no easy answers that fit into a three-step Powerpoint presentation. |
| What political change requires more than anything else is convincing one's fellow citizens of the need to act. There are all sorts of ways to do that. We all have to find in ourselves how we can be most effective given our talents, opportunities, abilities, and the like. | What political change requires more than anything else is convincing one's fellow citizens of the need to act. There are all sorts of ways to do that. We all have to find in ourselves how we can be most effective given our talents, opportunities, abilities, and the like. |
| I'm always looking for ways to engage in effective political activism. The groups I've helped found are about that. I try to raise money for causes and people where I think good can be done. Most of all, I devote myself to trying to persuade as many people as possible of the need to act and why. That's what political change is: a slow, grinding, difficult process that has no easy answers. | I'm always looking for ways to engage in effective political activism. The groups I've helped found are about that. I try to raise money for causes and people where I think good can be done. Most of all, I devote myself to trying to persuade as many people as possible of the need to act and why. That's what political change is: a slow, grinding, difficult process that has no easy answers. |
| Noam Chomsky has been at this for decades, without a lot of effect, What do you think of your odds? Is it best to just think in terms of incremental steps? mikedow | Noam Chomsky has been at this for decades, without a lot of effect, What do you think of your odds? Is it best to just think in terms of incremental steps? mikedow |
| I really disagree with the premise: that he's been working for decades "without a lot of effect". | I really disagree with the premise: that he's been working for decades "without a lot of effect". |
| Everywhere I go, I meet people who tell me that they have had their thinking radically altered by him. Almost everyone I know whose political writing and activism I respect has been significantly influenced by him, directly or indirectly, whether they're aware of it or not. | Everywhere I go, I meet people who tell me that they have had their thinking radically altered by him. Almost everyone I know whose political writing and activism I respect has been significantly influenced by him, directly or indirectly, whether they're aware of it or not. |
| See my above comment: the power of ideas, of persuading people to think differently, is the number one most important weapon in engendering political change, and few people have been as successful and effective as that as Noam Chomsky. Does he wish it were more? I'm sure he does. But if you listen to him on this question, he's very well aware that one has to be patient, that these changes are slow and often imperceptible, but there is lots of evidence that many things have improved, even if far too much has worsened. | See my above comment: the power of ideas, of persuading people to think differently, is the number one most important weapon in engendering political change, and few people have been as successful and effective as that as Noam Chomsky. Does he wish it were more? I'm sure he does. But if you listen to him on this question, he's very well aware that one has to be patient, that these changes are slow and often imperceptible, but there is lots of evidence that many things have improved, even if far too much has worsened. |
| Sign off: | Sign off: |
| Thanks everyone - my time is up. I really appreciate the excellent, thoughful and thought-provoking questions. | Thanks everyone - my time is up. I really appreciate the excellent, thoughful and thought-provoking questions. |
| I really believe that anyone with a platform should engage with readers and be accountable to questions and critiques - I'm really glad most everyone here who asked questions made this such an elevated and fulfilling exercise. | I really believe that anyone with a platform should engage with readers and be accountable to questions and critiques - I'm really glad most everyone here who asked questions made this such an elevated and fulfilling exercise. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |