That’s an understatement! A great blog to keep up with all things SOPA/PIPA.

http://www.techdirt.com/

It threatens to break the internet…really, that’s not an exaggeration. It’s destructive of interntet innovation, and odious in a bunch of different ways.

Here is a technical article on the issues: http://is.gd/wbfR23

And here is the EFF giving a broad overview: http://is.gd/aN0K9x

Sorry for hijacking the thread in this way, but this is a exceptionally serious issue that is receiving very little attention.

I mostly but not entirely agree with this perspective. Where I diverge, here, is that I think Paul’s undoubtedly frames os evil opposition to war in a way that extends beyond a simple libertarian dissent to government. He, for example, routinely asks audiences what in the face of bellicose aggression and threats would they do if they were in charge of the government of Iran. This concept of thinking of he world outside of the imperial mentality is radical and bold.

Of course Paul broader worldview would impose castotrophic consequences on the very constituencies progressives effuse to care about, but I don’t think that Greenwald is wrong I’m issuing his challenge. The tragedy, to paraphrase a friend, is that Paul is unaacepteable, but it’s also unacceptable that there is no one on the liberal left with such prominence taking forceful positions against attacks on civil liberties, wars, drones and the drug wars.

Romney’s dog should be so lucky.

I’m impressed that anyone old enough to remember when Larry King was on the radio still has the faculties to remember that Larry King was on the radio. It’s the “Keith Richards’ memoir” conondrum.

Willard Mitt on traveling with dogs

“This is a completely air-tight kennel, mounted on the top of our car,” Romney says in the ad.

http://www.newser.com/story/137319/treatment-of-family-dog-seamus-dogs-mitt-romney.html

Nothing stated about whether he provides the dog with scuba gear (borrowed from R Maddow).

I can remember almost every political scandal and key players from 1983 onward. Hell, I remember when Larry King was still on radio. I can also recall almost any comic book or cartoon over the last 35 years. My knowledge of HR Puff n Stuff and Denny O’Neil’s Green Lantern/Green Arrow series from the 70′s is scary.

Thanks for the cat clarification — you had me wondering. But how does a guy a dozen years out of college know about either Fritz or Felix?

If Ron Paul opposed foreign wars out of some moral conviction that was manifest here and there in his other views, it would be much easier to salute him. The fact that his non-interventionism flows from an ideology of pure selfishness makes a difference.

a. My comment of “man crush” wasn’t meant to insinuate anything about GG’s sexuality, quite the opposite. Seeing that he is actually gay, I can see how that can be interpreted. So no, I don’t think Greenwald’s is in love with Ron Paul and would not disparage the man’s sexual orientation.

b. I still call a spade a spade, Ron Paul is on the opposite side of virtually everything I believe as a progressive. Just because he says a few things against the war (for very different reasons than you or I) doesn’t make him anti-war or actually progressive on the ideas foreign intervention. A broken alarm clock is right at least twice a day, its still a broken alarm clock.

And yet, as Greenwald says, he’s the non-inmterventionist in this race. Santorum wants to bomb Iran, and Obama IS bombing Pakistan.

You fail yet again to get the point. You trot out Paul’s many failings (all of which I agree with) as an indictment of his military views, but these are not relevanr to the point. Your only relevant objection is his vote for the Afghan war, but no one said that one had to be a pacifist to want reform in our fairly sanguinary foreign policy.

You can simultaneously argue that we don’t need 600 military bases around the world, and think that an attack on the US warrants a response. Only fools say otherwise, but your objections on grounds of Paul’s consistencey would make fools of anyone who supported any war no matter how justified.

As “a black man” it’s nice that you don’t overlook his views on civil rights (nor do I as a white man…he’s obnoxious and disgusting on civil rights and voting rights), but it’s sad to see that the threshold of your empathy ends there; your snotty assertion about his “man love” seems a little off color given that Greenwald is a homosexual.

I’ll just repeat the exceptionally simple and clear point which seems, unusually, just outside your grasp. It is possible to denounce Paul for his many awful views, and still praise him for raising other important ones.

Pat Buchanan is a disgusting toad…he’s also correct about manufacturing jobs. Barack Obama is a guy I really like he’s also a complete failure and disaster on civil liberties. Lyndon Johnson was a giant on domestic policy, and a disaster on foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson was a great internationalist, and a putrid racist. See how it works?

I’m just making one point. I’m not suporting Paul, neither is Greenwald. It sure is nice that someone is asking questions about the appartus of empire whatver the reasons are. You don’t have to be an isolationist to wish for those questions to get some air time.

Dan O, here’s the thing……….I have read Greenwald’s many mental gymnastics on Salon.com about his man love for Ron Paul (who voted for the war in Afghanistan and cowered like a punk when Congresswoman Lee stood alone to tell Bush no.)

Greenwald has written extensively about how because Ron Paul is against foreign war (because Ron Paul thinks that Americans shouldn’t give a damn about the rest of the world or even their own neighbors, so he’s against foreign aid and FEMA too.) and the Wall Street bailouts (because Ron Paul doesn’t believe that there should assurance, regulations or protections of any kind in capitalism. So, bye-bye Consumer Protection and FDA under President Ron Paul) that means that he’s light years ahead of Obama on these issues. On further examination, he’s really not. Like Coop, I’m taking in the big picture and realizing Ron Paul ain’t on our side.

If you want to talk about a Republican candidate who is really taking a stake at our biggest issue in DC, campaign finance and lobbying, go to talk to Buddy Roemer.

And I haven’t ‘fallen victim’ to a damn thing, I’ve just known enough Objectivists in my college years to realize that Ron Paul isn’t anti-war, he’s an isolationist, big difference. Yes, Ron Paul wouldn’t send kids to war, but he would also pull us out of the UN and would ban foreign aid.

And as a Black man, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Ron Paul thinks the Civil Rights act infringes about his civil liberties or his racist rants from the 90′s. I also can’t stand for any Republican candidate who says the fix for our financial system is no regulation.

Unlike a lot of folks, I’ve known about Ron Paul and his crackpot beliefs since I was college sophomore almost 15 years ago. So, yeah, I wouldn’t support Ron Paul if you paid me.

I also don’t fawn over Greenwald’s other pet fetish, Bradley Manning. Why? Because, having family members and friends who served (and almost joining the Marines myself), the idea than an Army private would willy-nilly leak classified data to a foreign journalist because he’s nominally anti-war is a bit disturbing. Does that make a weak-minded reflexive too?

Go actuially read Greenwald. He has praised Paul for bringing up issues about militarism that no other candidate is addressing. He has repeatedly and specifically repudiated his other views and repeatedly and specifically said that he is neither endorsing nor supporting him.

He has one simple message about Paul and that is that he’s the only guy talking about this stuff–a bit of an ironic twist when the deeply conservative and retrograde Paul is better than progressive darling Obama, on these issues.

You’ve fallen victim, I’m afraid, to the paper-thin analysis of Katha Pollitt and other reflexives who can’t distinguish between thanks over an issue being discussed and full support for a candidate. Whatever anyone else has said, it’s wrong to claim Greenwald is taking this position, because he’s not.