Time's Michael Grunwald, Who Wants the Government To "Tread on Me," Also Wants Julian Assange Droned

Michael GrunwaldTimeIf there were any doubts that Time magazine's Michael Grunwald is a huge fan of a big, activist and somewhat psychopathic government after he penned his ode to the state, "Tread on Me," such skepticism should be dispelled by his tweeted call for a lethal drone strike on Julian Assange of Wikileaks. To be completely accurate, he tweeted, "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange."

Braden Goyette writes at Huffington Post:

A TIME magazine reporter caused ire on Twitter Saturday night when he said that he "can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out" Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Michael Grunwald's tweet, since deleted, was quickly met with outrage and bewilderment. Glenn Greenwald, who recently broke several revelations about NSA surveillance programs based on documents provided to him by leaker Edward Snowden, was particularly vocal in expressing his disgust with Grunwald's statement.

Although removed from Twitter, the tweet lives on as as screen captures by astonished web surfers everywhere.

Michael Grunwald being an assTwitter

Amidst a flurry of, not surprisingly, harsh criticism, Grunwald not only deleted his cheerleading for death from the sky, but apologized: "It was a dumb tweet. I'm sorry. I deserve the backlash. (Maybe not the anti-Semitic stuff but otherwise I asked for it.)"

Grunwald's apology should be taken with a grain of salt, since his devotion to a good stomping by the state is nothing new. Back in April, he penned "Tread on Me: The Case for Freedom From Terrorist Bombings, School Shootings and Exploding Factories":

I guess you could call me a statist. I’m not sure we need public financing for our symphonies or our farmers or our mortgages—history will also recall my Stand With Rand on the great laser-pointing controversy of 2011—but we do need Big Government to attack the big collective action problems of the modern world. Our rights are not inviolate. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter. And if the authorities decided it was vital to ask Tsarnaev about his alleged murder of innocents before reminding him of his Fifth Amendment rights to lawyer up, I won’t second-guess their call. The civil liberties purists of the ACLU are just as extreme as the gun purists of the NRA, or the anti-regulatory purists in business groups like the Club for Growth.

In that piece, with regard to drones, Grunwald wrote, "I’m more inclined to stand with the public servants keeping us safe, even when the al-Qaeda operative they ice in Yemen is an American citizen."

As I wrote at the time, "Grunwald knows what he wants, and he wants it good and hard." It's no surprise that he prefers people with whom he disagrees to get it even harder — and occasionally in the form of remote-controlled death from the sky, without even a pretense of due process.

Update: A Time spokesperson says, "Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views. He regrets having tweeted it, and he removed it from his feed."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Dweebston||

    He'll be among the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. After a wholly vetted trial, of course. Even the revolution believes in due process.

  • Killazontherun||

    The vetting will be a handful of straws which will decide who gets dibs.

  • DWC||

    But there's not going to be a revolution - at least no as long as we can watch our American Idol and the Kardashians and eat our toaster strudel and it's in the interest of the owners to keep us in that stuff.

  • GILMORE||

    "owners"?

    ive seen this comment elsewhere. strikes me as trolling for some epic anti-statist psycho ranting so teh Man can identifies the 'dangerous ones'.

    You dont need some mythic corporate-boogeymen/rich people to "other" or 'enemy-fy' in order to object to the pathetic power-grabs made by the federales in the name of 'security'. The enemy isnt some cabal of 'elites' = is banal bureaucrats who've manipulated the law to give themselves excessive powers which they now defend as essential to future existence.

    this jerk that wants to get tread on is emblematic of the pants-wetting generation that has allowed this to happen. i shit on all of them.

  • Whahappan?||

    Although I'm not sure what DWC means exactly with his post, but he may mean the bureaucrats/politicians/cronies as the "owners." Not really sure.

  • Nazdrakke||

    And what % of those outraged by his comment will make the intellectual journey from his loathsome comment to their political support of those who's violence he cheerleads for?

  • CatoTheElder||

    May Grunwald's chains be set lightly, and may posterity forget that he was our countryman.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    That's all the comment he deserves.

  • ||

    Nice.

  • Jefferson's Ghost||

    I bet he likes it good & hard.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter.

    I cannot believe there is a brain in which this sentence makes sense.

  • Slammer||

    LET us have rights? He doesn't even know what rights are. Slaves should be grateful for their masters giving them freedom? Fuck you!

  • Ted S.||

    Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater,

    The idiot clearly doesn't understnad what that case wsa about.

  • Irish||

    Every time someone uses the 'shouting fire' canard they should be reminded that it comes from a court decision in which the Supreme Court decided that it was totally okay to throw people in prison for voicing opposition to the draft.

  • Tony||

    The rights are not absolute and nobody has ever thought they were. Particularly in the case of the 2nd amendment, up to Heller and beyond it has been understood that firearms can be regulated to some extent. Since the constitution doesn't specify that extent, it's up to people with brains to figure it out. Perhaps the sweet spot is somewhere between gun rights absolutists and absolutist gun restrictionists.

  • Brendan||

    Yep, we can be prosecuted for firing them in congested areas, brandishing them without cause, using them to harm others in instances other self-defense.

    Persons in prison or mental health facilities after being found incompetent can prohibited from possessing them.

    BAM, there's your sweet spot. Everything else is infringing bullshit no different than it would be infringing bullshit if done to the acts protected by the 1st Amendment.

  • GPZsug||

    Tony, you admit (when pressured) that you don't believe in rights. If you're accepting the existence of rights for the sake of argument then use the term correctly. Rights are absolute by definition.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I doubt Tony doesn't believe in rights.

    Like any rationalist though (I can only speak for us) - natural rights are a total canard - complete bullshit to be colloquial.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Like any rationalist though (I can only speak for us) - natural rights are a total canard - complete bullshit to be colloquial.

    This is Marcotte-level writing.

  • juris imprudent||

    Be careful that you two don't cross the streams of DERP.

  • Raven Nation||

    +1

  • GPZsug||

    I doubt Tony doesn't believe in rights.

    I'm not interested in searching for his quote, but he's admitted to being a moral nihilist. Same thing.

    natural rights are a total canard - complete bullshit to be colloquial.

    I have nothing against that position, as long as you're consistent. Although without natural rights there's really no fundamental value to consistency. Might makes right is a very appealing philosophy. It's no wonder 99.999999% of humanity supports it.

    In any case, discussions with moral nihilists are usually boring.

  • Damned Fool||

    Palin's Buttplug| 8.18.13 @ 2:32PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    I doubt Tony doesn't believe in rights.

    Like any rationalist though (I can only speak for us) - natural rights are a total canard - complete bullshit to be colloquial.

    If you knew what rationality meant, I would be more inclined to believe you.

  • cw||

    [I]t's up to people with brains to figure it out.

    And if those brainy people decide to regulate in a way you deem insufficient?

  • John Jay.||

    Impossible. If they're brainy, then they'll come up with the appropriate regulations. If they don't come up with the appropriate regulations, then they weren't brainy. And thus the circle of logic is complete.

  • XM||

    Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater can cause a panic that harms others. Someone owning a semi automatic weapon that holds 15 bullets is not dangerous in and of itself. Automatic weapons are effectively banned.

    And you probably can't be arrested for just screaming "fire" at a random place. Most people will just look at you funny and carry on. You have to do a little more than that.

  • GILMORE||

    What about de boys dat be yellin 'Fiyah!! mad selector up in de dancehall!' in de crowded club now??

  • ||

    "Since the constitution doesn't specify that extent..."

    Actually it does, very pointedly, you fuckwit. It is a single sentence, you cant bother to read it?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter.

    Assault weapons for mass slaughter are already nearly impossible to get legally under the NFA and FOPA amendments. (other than for agents of the state)

    Not sure what assault weapons have to do with semiauto rifles.

  • cw||

    Punchable face?

  • Brendan||

    Hell yes.

    Problem is, who first? Paul Krugman, David Frum, or this smug douchebag?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh man, just read that "Tread on Me" article.

    I'm definitely awake now. Anger gets you moving on a gloomy sunday afternoon.

    I should go to the range and kill some paper.

  • Stevie OneLeg||

    Why do you hate trees?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Time's Michael Grunwald is threatening Julian Assange with proposed drone strikes; may Assange take Grunwald out first, sending a drone or hit man to Grunwald's South Beach (Miami) home, as long as, unlike Greenwald's hero Obama, he doesn't also kill Greenwald's wife Cristina Dominguez and their children?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Grunwald is in Miami? As in Miami, Florida?

    STAND YOUR GROUND, JULIAN!

  • ||

    One of the few good things to come of the Zimmerman affair was that Florida took Arizona's post-SB1070/Giffords "Most Racist and Terrible State in the US" crown. Good for me, anyways, because I was getting pretty sick and tired of hearing pricks from Newark, Detroit and LA talk shit about how horrible it is here.

    Nope, now Floridians get the heat and can suffer in a Christlike fashion for the sin of not lynching poor old Jorge Z. Congratulations, my friends, you've earned it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    IIRC That song was because we wouldn't give government employees another day off

  • Killazontherun||

    If it were me, I would have gone for the ultimate dick move. Offered Malcolm X Day as an alternative. Some parts of his beliefs were more healthy than MLKs, anyway.

  • Killazontherun||

  • Hollywood||

    Wow, calm down there, Goebbels...

  • General Butt Naked||

    There’s dangerous stuff out there, and while it’s probably fun to stand with Rand, I’m more inclined to stand with the public servants keeping us safe, even when the al-Qaeda operative they ice in Yemen is an American citizen, even when they shut down an entire city to hunt for a single teenager, and yes, even when they try to regulate coal plants and oil rigs and Wall Street casinos that would greatly prefer to be left alone. That’s why I pay my taxes, and that’s why I don’t feel like I’m being tyrannized when I pay them.

    What a sad fucking excuse for a human being. At least the enemies of liberty aren't even trying anymore to hide their ways anymore. The mask slippage will make recruiting efforts that much easier.

  • cw||

    The guy really doesn't give a fuck that what he proposes hurts so many people.

    Progressives really are the opposite of caring people.

  • Hyperion||

    Progressives are a religious cult and their God is government.

  • CatoTheElder||

    And Obama is their Prophet.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Forgot the obligatory PBUH.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Violence is their sacrament.

  • SweatingGin||

    In my more inspired moments, I keep wanting to start work on a progressive religious tract. Keep it quiet enough that it's not obvious that it's a religious work. Loosely follow the old testament, detailing the who the leaders of the progressive movement are at each time, and when it gets passed to another leader.

    Work in the chain of prophets. I have to figure Obama would be the anointed one, so it needs a special section on his life and work, and the scourging that is the Rodeo Clown.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Progressives are statists, of course so are conservatives. Neither mind using government to create their ideas of a perfect world. Progressives stop only at the idea of certain protected groups being harmed and conservatives at tradition, whereas we stop at coercion.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Shhh, you're not supposed to criticize conservative statism here. They will call Tu quoque on you.

  • cw||

    Eh, no.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Please note that I do not restrict myself to criticizing conservative statism here, but am happy to flag it among progressives when I see it. Do you do the same?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I often remark that on what I thought was the #1 issue to libertarians (the WOD) both parties have proven abysmal failures.

    Also, despite the admiral restraint Obama has shown in the Middle East (compared to his cowboy war-monger predecessor) we are still in Afghanistan.

    Those would be just two examples where I am critical of prog-state failures.

  • Gbob||

    "admiral restraint"

    I understand he dresses as a BDSM sailor.

  • cw||

    Yep. The unpopularity of the Iraq war has nothing to do with Obama's decision not to invade other countries (with U.S. troops, anyway). He's just an admirable guy who's only launched missiles in Libya, droned half the M.E. and refused to withdraw any aid to Egypt.

  • GILMORE||

    "the admiral restraint Obama has shown in the Middle East"

    The level of combined ignorance and statist cock-sucking here is impressive.

    apparently inciting goverment overthrow, arming jihadis, and randomly assassinating people is now 'progressive restraint'. see, cause Bush.....

  • Ted S.||

    He believes it doesn't hurt him.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I wonder if the mask-slippage is a bad sign or a good thing or both? Does it mean they can do this without consequence or are they wrong and it makes it easier for us?

  • GILMORE||

    He would have made an excellent apologist for the soviet Gulags

  • Hyperion||

    "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange."

    Go ahead, fool, and wish that they make a martyr out of Assange. It will have exactly the opposite effect of what fools like you imagine it would, in your very small mind.

  • cw||

    Grunwald won't write a defense, but an ode, if such an act were to occur. He's that small-minded.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I you go to the HuffPo article, he only regrets writing the twit because it gives Assange followers a justified persecution complex.

    Fair point. I'll delete. @rober1236Jua my main problem with this is it gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in
  • ||

    Only properly recognized victim groups ought to be able to have nice safe persecution complexes to hide behind.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So Time was being totally disingenuous when they claimed he "regrets the tweet". Cool.

  • ||

    And when it comes to disingenuous...

  • GILMORE||

    "i hope someone is murdered by the state"

    Somebody: "what the fuck??!"

    "oh shut up you big crybaby"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A Time spokesperson says, "Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views. He regrets having tweeted it, and he removed it from his feed."

    And nothing else happened.

  • Hollywood||


    ... Bloomberg has been an amazing mayor.

    Need I say more?

  • Solanum||

    "Grunwald knows what he wants, and he wants it good and hard."

    Judging from the expression on his face in that top picture, he's getting it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater


    One of my first acts when I am named emergency dictator of the Republic will be to order 40 lashes for anyone who applies this faulty metaphor from a case which is no longer good case law. (see: Brandenburg v. Ohio)

    the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter.

    I could interpret this as impugning my character. I don't know what sort of homicidal freak Michael Grunwald is, but I know that have the self-restraint to not murder people.

    And if the authorities decided it was vital to ask Tsarnaev about his alleged murder of innocents before reminding him of his Fifth Amendment rights to lawyer up, I won’t second-guess their call.

    Well aren't you a good little serf? Have a treat and a pat on the head.

    Can I just go ahead and give Grunwald and those like him the slavery they seem to crave?

  • Irish||

    His comparison of 'shouting fire' to owning a rifle is also totally ridiculous. He isn't comparing like to like. Shouting fire in crowded theater could theoretically hurt somebody, whereas simply owning an assault rifle cannot hurt anyone unless you behave irresponsibly or criminally.

    A better analogy would be "Just as the first amendment doesn't let us shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, the second amendment shouldn't let us shoot people." Which is, of course, already the law.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree with your ultimate point, but respectfully point out that the term 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' was famously invoked in the Schenck case wherein the SCOTUS upheld a conviction for a speaker whose 'crime' was speaking out against (And urging people to not participate in) the draft during WWI. The speech in question wasn't thought to immediately harm people but be very close (if people didn't participate in the draft then the Huns would overrun us, or something). So perhaps in context it fits with what Grunwald is saying.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Except that decision was overturned with extreme prejudice over 40 years ago.

  • Irish||

    I know. I actually pointed that out upthread. I'm just saying that even if the shouting fire in a crowded theater quote were valid, it would still be a bad analogy.

    The speech in question wasn't thought to immediately harm people but be very close (if people didn't participate in the draft then the Huns would overrun us, or something). So perhaps in context it fits with what Grunwald is saying.

    I seriously doubt that. I just think Grunwald knows nothing about history and runs his mouth on issues he hasn't bothered to keep himself informed about.

  • cw||

    "Just as the first amendment doesn't let us shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, the second amendment shouldn't let us shoot people." Which is, of course, already the law.

    And that's the problem with the Grunwalds of the world. He knows his analogy is dishonest, but if he wants to persuade others to adopt what really is his cultural preference as public policy, he has mislead.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'd think the closest analogy would be to brandishing a gun in a crowded theater... which is also already illegal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The closest analogy would be to advocating shooting in a crowded theater.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I don't think so -- that would be like advocating setting a fire in a crowded theater, not claiming there already was one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The reasoning in the Schenk case was: speech advocating resistance to the draft leads to people resisting the draft which leads to no army which leads to the US being overrun by Huns.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I thought we're talking about analogies to the fire-shouting, not the draft-criticizing.

    Shouting fire leads people to trample each other trying to get out of the theater, not burns.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    A completely parallel example would be shouting "Gun!" or "He's got a gun" and playing gunfire sounds from an iPod, in a crowded theater. Especially post-Aurora (which coincidentally involved another Holmes causing a panic in a crowded theater).

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The shouting fire in a crowded theater had nothing to do with any real scenario of a threat to public safety. It had to do with a socialist who handed out flyers opposing the draft during World War I and was prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Holmes, who wrote the majority opinion (and hadn't seen the authoritarian boot he wasn't willing to lick) actually wrote this:

    The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.

    You can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater all you want, and when the other patrons tell you to shut the fuck up and continue watching the show, then what?

    Despite the famous sentence, the court's rationale was "during war, FUCK YOUR RIGHTS."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Holmes, who wrote the majority opinion (and hadn't seen the authoritarian boot he wasn't willing to lick)

    In fairness to Holmes it was an unanimous decision, and Holmes later famously went on to dissent against the much worse 'bad tendency' test of Whitney v. California and eventually endorsed a clear and present danger test that took a major step towards the Brandenburg holding.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I would credit Holmes slight shift in position to Zechariah Chafee, who worked on Holmes from the time of Schenck to Whitney. Specifically by giving Holmes his essay on free speech during war time.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, Holmes did not have to be moved by Chafee's work (the other justices involved were not), so I would give him more credit. I also think Holmes' shift in position was more substantial.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Why would you when Brandeis wrote the concurrence to Whitney?

    Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties…They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not sure of your point. Holmes joined Brandies' concurrence there which endorsed a more speech friendly test.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The point is me taking a dig on Holmes for lacking the foresight to recognize how his opinion in Schenck could be interpreted as allowing the suppression of any speech the government doesn't approve of. And that blind deferral to authority seems to be Holmes' default position. (see: Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.).

    And his rather appalling opinion in Buck v. Bell has never been overturned.

  • SweatingGin||

    Three generations of imbeciles using "Fire in a crowded theatre" to argue against rights is enough.

  • Whahappan?||

    Sweet.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    OWHJ is using "and" to indicate cause and effect there. He considers the panic to be the inevitable and immediate result of the speech, otherwise there would be no free speech issue.

    The example is treasured because it's a case where "bad speech" cannot be rebutted before it causes harm.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    considers the panic to be the inevitable and immediate result of the speech

    Which is asinine.

    The example is treasured because it's a case where "bad speech" cannot be rebutted before it causes harm.

    Except in that case, the speech caused no demonstrable harm. The war effort continued without issue, men were drafted, the war was fought, and Saint Woodrow got to feel like a big boy.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, I know. I remember one time when Christopher Hitchens was debating some asshole over the right to free speech, and the guy brought up the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' quote. When it was his turn, Hitchens immediately yelled 'FIIIIRRRRE!' and everyone started laughing. Hitchens then asked his opponent if he should be arrested.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Were they debating in a crowded theater? Could the audience immediately see that Mr Hitchens was joking?

  • Irish||

    Were they debating in a crowded theater?

    Yes.

    Could the audience immediately see that Mr Hitchens was joking?

    Yes, but irrelevant. The problem with the shouting fire quote is that it does not take into consideration what the circumstances were. Hitchens was showing that there are circumstances in which even the biggest cliche about free speech restrictions is invalid. The fact that he was joking doesn't matter because the quote itself doesn't take joking into account.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    OWHJ was being imprecise in the quote, but he was clearly referring to a case where the other people in the theater would believe that there was an actual fire.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's a moronic cliche.

    What if there was a fire? Or it was shouted as part of the performance?

    The cliche supposes that people are panic prone fools and that upon hearing that phrase would stampede out of the theater, trampling people to death.

    OWH had no reason to believe that would happen other than knowing what a panic prone pussy he himself was.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Aqua Buddha bless Hitchens' non-existent soul. Shame he's dead and Michael Grunwald still walks the Earth.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Nice weekend rage-o-thon so far. The Justice Dept deciding the law means whatever the fuck it wants it to mean at any given time and going after a private businessman for refusing to engage in spying on his fellow citizens on behalf of the government, to journalists wishing for the murder of those who publish government secrets.

    Yeah, time to fire up State of Decay, toss a pipe threader, shotgun, and a few petrol bombs into a backpack and live in a kinder, gentler world for a few hours.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    This is all the more bizarre since nothing's stopping him from writing his defense of the droning of Assange now, before it happens.

    Now that Time has discovered the idea of forgiveness for stupid actions (and the attempted cover-up thereof), maybe they'll let up on the rodeo clown.

  • cw||

    Grunwald doesn't seem to really feel sorry for what he wrote. Rather his detractors now can assign a "persecution complex" to Assange.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    How did the world ever identify idiots before Twitter?

  • Dave Krueger||

    "Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater..."

    I cringe every time I hear this dumb-ass quote.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The other day we had a discussion here about Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. I think it is fair to say it is a popular text especially among the left. Whatever can be said about its questionable historical accuracy and blatant bias it occurred to me: how could any leftist read that book and then make a statement like Grunwald's about slavishly trusting government employees to do what is best for him?

    I wonder if he's a fan of the book, and if so whether he could grasp the dissonance.

  • cw||

    Hard to say. While I think Zinn was a little crazy, he at least seemed to be consistently against the state, up to and including being against property rights protected by the state. So he was at least consistent.

    Grunwald would probably admire Zinn's passion for "the people" but would disagree with his anti-state position, arguing the state is a force for good when the right people are in charge.

  • Irish||

    While I think Zinn was a little crazy, he at least seemed to be consistently against the state, up to and including being against property rights protected by the state. So he was at least consistent.

    Except that he believed property rights should be eliminated so that the grand socialist state could redistribute the income.

  • cw||

    True. Which is what made Zinn nuts: no more state coercion, except to redistribute wealth.

    It's what makes communism so unreasonable in the first place.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    the state is a force for good when the right people are in charge.

    Considering the people in charge are always the wrong people -- and this tendency is enhanced in our democratic-ish system -- it would seem he's making an unfalsifiable claim!

  • cw||

    Kinda like neo-Keynesians who claim fiscal stimulus would have worked had it been bigger.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am glad that a radical history professor assigned Zinn's book for me to read. I use it as a bridge when I am trying to convert liberals. They have often read it, and if they have I talk to them about the parts where the terrible atrocities committed by the liberal saints such as FDR, Truman, LBJ and such are discussed. I then go from there to point out that if those liberal saints used government so, then who can be trusted in charge of it? Many of them start to see government power itself and inherently as the problem.

  • SweatingGin||

    I then go from there to point out that if those liberal saints used government so, then who can be trusted in charge of it?

    OBAMA!

  • cw||

    I pointed out what FDR did re: Japanese internment camps, to which he replied, "Even FDR bowed down to fear." Yet he couldn't come to the conclusion that maybe governments shouldn't have that kind of power to begin with.

  • cw||

    *to a progressive acquaintance on Facebook

  • Jon Lester||

    More people could stand to learn that. Here in Georgia, where we've had a Republican supermajority in power for a number of years, yet the 165-year Democratic reign is fresh in our memory, it's apparent that regardless of party, or even of economic system, single-party rule always leads to cronyism, incompetence and worse abuses, at the expense of the governed.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Is Grunwald even a self-professed liberal, or progressive?

    I thought he came off sounding like a big government conservative.

    One of those "reasonable" ones like Brooks, Parker, or Douthat.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So in the previous thread, I'm denigrated for being offended by an act that cheered on the maiming of a human being, while in this thread everyone's getting hot and bothered by a public wish for the death of a human being. Anyone care to mansplain?

  • Whahappan?||

    I'll take a stab at it. One was a joke, there was no maiming, or even a possibility of a maiming, and the other was a dead serious call for someone to be murdered. You seriously don't see a difference?

  • Virginian||

    Forget it man, it's Tulpa.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I sense the hate in this thread is dying down. Let me add some fuel:

    Speaking at Harvard earlier this year, Al Gore praised a student group that was pushing the university to sell its investments in fossil-fuel companies, and compared their activities to the divestment campaign in the 1980s that helped to end South Africa’s racist apartheid policy.

    How fair is that comparison? The dividing lines may be less sharp than they were with apartheid, but our continued high level of greenhouse-gas emissions protects the interests of one group of humans—mainly affluent people who are alive today—at the cost of others. (Compared with most of the world’s population, even the American and Australian coal miners who would lose their jobs if the industry shut down are affluent.)...
    Worldwide, the poor leave a very small carbon footprint, but they will suffer the most from climate change. Many live in hot places that are getting even hotter, and hundreds of millions of them are subsistence farmers who depend on rainfall to grow their crops. Rainfall patterns will vary, and the Asian monsoon will become less reliable. Those who live on this planet in future centuries will live in a hotter world, with higher sea levels, less arable land, and more extreme hurricanes, droughts, and floods.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If a person is convinced that this activity is harmful and their course of action helpful (I do not by the way) I do not see any reason to object to their non-coercive attempts to change the minds and investments of those they do business with.

  • cw||

    Fossil fuels have helped me and everyone I know to live in relative comfort compared to our ancestors. And we're not exactly affluent.

  • Tony||

    You and everyone you know are extremely affluent compared to the victims that passage refers to. What's your point? You benefit by harming others, therefore it's OK?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Tony, as he sits sipping his latte and typing on his laptop, thinks that people in the Third World are better off starving to death than living in a world where abundant energy sources like coal, natural gas, and nuclear power grow Third World economies and lift millions of people out of poverty.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not care much for this kind of rebuttal, it is too close to the 'hey libertarian, I bet you drove on a government road today before arguing with me' arguments I hear from progressives (and even conservatives).

  • Irish||

    Not really. Libertarians do one of two things when someone tries to use that argument:

    1. He points out to private means of building roads in the past and the fact that they were often more efficient and better constructed roads or

    2. He points out that he is not an anarchist and is therefore not opposed to all government programs, of which roads could be included.

    Libertarians therefore have answers to that ridiculous criticism. Liberals have no rational answer to the fact that there has never been a means of lifting people out of poverty other than industrialization and the free market, both of which will increase emissions until some other energy source is discovered.

    Since they have no answer, liberals actually are arguing that the poor should be left to starve in their little hovels while the rich liberals sip lattes in Portland.

  • cw||

    They don't seem to realize that alternative energy is capital intensive. And what produces the capital used to create alternative sources? Fossil fuels.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Or that alternative energy is unreliable and will not lift anyone out of a world of energy scarcity, especially those who are poor and can't afford coal let alone the highest cost form of energy production we have, renewables.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I meant on a more general logical level: Tony's (or anyone's) arguments do not become incorrect because he (or they) might not live up to what the arguments suggest.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Not at all the same argument. I'm not telling Tony to go live in a mudhut in Chad, I'm pointing out that he wants to eliminate an option for Third World people because he lives in a country wealthy enough to use an alternative that is more expensive and inefficient.

    In Tony's ideal progressive world, government would be in bed with green tech companies and subsidizing solar, wind, and high speed rail. He'd get tax credits and free money for driving a Prius or a Leaf.

    Does it sound like Tony-stan is a world at all practical for the people Africa and Asia?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    It is not practical for us. It will just bring many people in the 1st world into a 3rd world life style when energy is so expensive many cannot afford it.

  • cw||

    So how about letting all those poor countries develop, like ours have, and they will be more affluent than their ancestors?

  • Irish||

    Worldwide, the poor leave a very small carbon footprint, but they will suffer the most from climate change.

    This is one of those statements that is factually true but doesn't tell you the whole story. The reason fossil fuel emissions are increasing is because poor countries are industrializing. In other words, emissions are going up because the poor are becoming less poor. What Gore is advocating is that we do everything in our power to stop these emissions, a goal that would result in those poor people remaining impoverished forever.

    Emissions in America have dropped to 1992 levels and European emissions have also fallen. It's third world industrialization that is driving up emissions.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    They may have dropped, but are they not still disproportionate to N. America and Europe's percent of world population?

    I think most environmentalists I know call primarily for reductions in the First World.

  • John||

    And call for the third world staying the same. IN other words, most environmentalists want the poor to stay poor, not breed, and hopefully die off as quickly as possible.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do environmentalists prioritize Third World reductions? I find they usually go to pains to focus on the First World as a disproportionate problem.

  • John||

    They certainly don't want increases. And that means eternal poverty.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    and death by malaria thanks to their ddt ban

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If they don't control the Third World emissions there's no point to anything they're doing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree with this as an empirical matter. I am only commenting on the argument 'environmentalists want the Third World to suffer.' Perhaps they are incorrect to think that First World 'excesses' could be curbed without them being taken up in the Third World, but if they in fact honestly believe this to be so they are at least not guilty of wanting the Third World to cut back and suffer.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    To the extent they're honest in that belief they're willfully ignorant.

  • Irish||

    They may have dropped, but are they not still disproportionate to N. America and Europe's percent of world population?

    Obviously, because we aren't poor. The point is this: Whatever the first world does is of no relevance to long term fossil fuel usage. India and China industrialization are going to dwarf the fossil fuel usage of the Western world, and it's going to happen relatively soon. That's not even counting industrialization in less populous countries like Chile which are unquestionably going to see an increase.

    Plus, if the first world makes it prohibitively expensive to produce in our countries, then those businesses will just move to second and third world nations for all their production. What that means is that first world decreases in emissions will likely be totally offset by those carbon emitting companies moving to other nations.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not know if they count India and China as Third World.

  • Irish||

    India and China have massive populations living in third world squalor. Both countries are essentially two countries. In China you have the wealthy coastal cities while inland China is desperately poor. In India you have some very rich places which are surrounded by ghettos in which people make $5 a day.

    I'd consider them to be third world overall, albeit with wealthy areas that you don't normally see in the third world.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree about your 'two countries' assessment. I am only arguing that many environmentalists may have an idea that where they are First World emissions could be curbed and where Third World not (or even expanded through a 'more fair' distribution).

  • cw||

    They were before, and now they are not because of industrialization.

  • Virginian||

    They may have dropped, but are they not still disproportionate to N. America and Europe's percent of world population?

    Yes, but that's a bullshit measurement. When you compare energy consumption with GDP, they track very closely. The US uses a quarter of the energy consumed yearly, but it also produces a quarter of the wealth.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Worldwide, the poor leave a very small carbon footprint, but they will suffer the most from climate change.

    And they'll suffer even more if they're barred from developing their countries using fossil fuels.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Many live in hot places that are getting even hotter, and hundreds of millions of them are subsistence farmers who depend on rainfall to grow their crops. Rainfall patterns will vary, and the Asian monsoon will become less reliable. Those who live on this planet in future centuries will live in a hotter world, with higher sea levels, less arable land, and more extreme hurricanes, droughts, and floods.

    Sounds to me like Mother Gaia is activating her immune system against the infection that is the human race.

    Or climate is cyclical and Al Gore is full of shit. His $200 million net worth could irrigate a lot of subsistence farmland.

  • cw||

    If Gore really believes it's morally wrong to consume fossil fuels, then why doesn't he, you know, downsize a bit? As I recall, he's used private jets when commercial was an option, and has a massive mansion that doesn't exactly run on compost.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    And wouldn't you know it, he is against nuclear power. Really, he is just for renewable energy that he can personally profit off of. And anybody who looks critically at renewable energy (solar/wind) you will find that anywhere it is installed doesn't cause for the reduction of fossil fuel use or CO2 emissions. It usually has the opposite effect due to the unreliable nature requiring constant spinning backup systems. These systems run in incredibly inefficient states so as to be always ready to backup the unreliable nature of wind and solar.

  • cw||

    Cato's Regulation Magazine featured a study that examined the reliability of wind turbines, and found that they produced the most power when they were least needed, and vice versa.

    Horribly inefficient. Maybe with time they, along with solar panels, will become more efficient. But I have to wonder why the private sector couldn't take up the risks rather than taxpayers.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    But don't they just make you FEEL good? Watching them spin majestically like the windmills of yore? Don't you just FEEL righteous about not raping Mother Gaia with oil wells of injustice?

  • cw||

    It certainly feels good pissing away other people's money.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    OH THE FEELIES...I LOVE HAVING THE LEFTY FEELIES.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    It is really physically impossible for windmills to get much more efficient, if one obeys the laws of thermodynamics. If someone wants to build them on their own dime, go for it, but they will only cause more problems than solve, while increasing the cost of electricity to rate payers.

    Solar really doesn't have much left either. And they will never work at night or during cloudy days. We have a relatively inexhaustible supply of heavy metals which want to fission. We have reached about the highest efficiency we can get out of the combustion cycle, we haven't even begun to truly tap the efficiency of the fission process.

    The fission of U-235 provides an energy density of 83,140,000 MJ/kg. Coal provides us with 24 MJ/kg. That is why the fuel core of a Navy submarine, smaller than the size of an oil barrel, can power the entire submarine for decades. You could hold in your hand the amount of U-235 (golf ball size sphere) you would need to power every part of your life, when fissioned efficiently.

  • Virginian||

    Oh shut up Mr "I Have Actual Expertise in These Matters". Nuclear power is dirty, wicked, unclean, an affront to Gaia Herself.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Nuclear is a rich power source, but dealing with the wastes is a huge problem of course. Both from an anti-pollution and an anti-terrorism perspective.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    What? No it isn't.

    Nuclear waste isn't waste at all. It still contains over 90% of the accessible energy (plus other useful isotopes). Even ignoring that, the waste is solid ceramic rods sealed in zirconium tubes. After being in reactor and than cooling in cooling pools, they are sealed in steel/cement casks what are virtually indistructible. Not to mention the relatively small amount of waste that a reactor produces. All of the U.S.'s nuclear waste could be piled up end-to-end in a football field at a depth of 7 yards. That is a very small amount. Fast reactors can burn that waste to get much more energy from it.

    The terrorist threat doesn't really make sense to me. What is the threat? Used fuel is very radioactive and does not contain bomb suitable material.. unless you are thinking dirty bomb. A terrorist would be better off just using conventional weapons than trying to make a dirty bomb from spent fuel. The plutonium in reactor spent fuel is littered with Pu isotopes that ruin the bomb.

  • Virginian||

    Again with your fucking expertise. Tulpa is being concerned about shit. His concern trumps your knowledge.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Random guy on the Internet agrees with Virginian, is proclaimed expert. Film at 11.

    (sorry for singling you out -- but this problem is pervasive on this site)

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I like the shift from nuclear waste being totally harmless stuff to being too radioactive to steal. Smooth.

    The terrorist threat doesn't really make sense to me. What is the threat?

    If you reprocess, as you're proposing, you have to separate out the useful isotopes of Pu and that's when there are proliferation concerns (which is why the US doesn't reprocess).

  • Gorilla tactics||

    It funny how people centuries ago realized that windmills were inefficient and switched to something better as soon as they could. But our progressives being "reality based" and "the science party" wants to use a fundamentally medieval technology in order to "move forward"

    Environuts: Almost as intelligent as feudal peasants

  • Irish||

    Also, how did Al Gore get to Harvard? Al Gore lives in Nashville, Tennessee. It's about 1000 miles between Nashville and Harvard. Unless Gore drove a Prius the whole way, the fact that he traveled 1000 miles to give a speech strikes me as a bit hypocritical.

    These jet setter environmentalists are one of the most annoying classes of people that the western world has ever created.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It's almost the same rationalization rich socialists give.

    That by using all these resources they can do more good by spreading the word around than if they refrained.

    Ends, means, whatever... pass the champagne and get me a handjob girl here stat!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Ah, but he pays for papal indulgences carbon offsets to make up for the fuel usage.

    I've always wondered what kind of scumbags they wind up paying. Is there a slimy unshaven guy somewhere standing next to a giant pile of wood saying "I'ma gonna emit fifty ton CO2 if I don'a get a ten thousand dolla!" until some rich person swoops in and ransoms the earth?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    IIRC Al Gore owns a carbon offset bookie...in other words he pays himself.

    So it's a slimy but shaven guy.

  • Calidissident||

    What reason is there to believe that current temperatures are the exactly perfect temperatures for human existence, and any deviation from them will necessarily result in horrific consequences? Somehow, if our ancestors managed to adapt to vastly greater climate changes throughout the eons, I think we'll be ok today

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The problem is the rate of change of temperature, which would be unprecedented in geologic history outside of mass volcanic eruptions and asteroid/comet impacts. It would happen too fast for the biota to adapt smoothly.

  • Calidissident||

    "which would be unprecedented in geologic history outside of mass volcanic eruptions and asteroid/comet impacts."

    So in other words, not unprecedented. And what rate of change? There hasn't been any warming in 15 years. Temperatures today are above historical averages (though that doesn't say much due to limited data), but because of warming that occurred prior to then and has leveled off since.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So in other words, not unprecedented.

    Technically not -- but the precedents all involved mass extinctions and a severe reduction in biomass.

    15 years is a flyspeck in geologic time. A 10C increase in global mean temperatures in 1000 years would be pretty devastating to the biota.

  • Calidissident||

    There have been volcanic eruptions in historical times that had a significant impact on the climate.

    I do agree with the part about the small geologic time. All the data we have regarding temperature is very limited and its difficult to draw precise conclusions about the natural cycle of temperature fluctuations.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Ocean acidification is also a concern, maybe even more important than air temperature change.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Can you really blame him? This will probably get him a regular slot on Morning Joke, with special guest status on Melissa Harris Perry's show.

  • Dave Krueger||

    Wait, does this mean Time employs reporters that aren't completely objective? I'm stunned.

    On the other hand, if the news media fired everyone who harbors ill will toward those they disagree with, there would be no establishment news outlets left in the U.S.

    The mainstream news media in the U.S. are erroneously referred to as the Fourth Estate. A more accurate name would be the Fourth Branch of Government. Or maybe just the Propaganda Ministry. Even when they are being critical of the government, they are being much kinder to them than any objective journalist is going to be.

    The government and mainstream media share a symbiotic relationship. It's a fallacy to even think of them as separate entities.

  • Jon Lester||

    An overthrow of today's journalistic establishment would not be a bad thing. I'd like to see more news outlets operating close to reason's business model, as opposed to corporate media conglomerates whose first duty is to make money for their shareholders. The corporate model isn't a bad thing in itself, of course, but when it comes to corporations in the business of informing the public, then people should know that reporting the truth is nowhere near the tops of their mission statements.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    OT: I am listening to The Joy Formidable right now. Great band. Here are a couple tracks to feed your mind.

    The Maw Maw Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMn6rfCuGjQ

    Little Blimp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_-HFzu-DiI

  • np||

    some offshore alternatives:
    https://countermail.com/

    Diskless web servers
    Unlike the competitors, our web servers are diskless. They don't have any hard drives and instead start from a CD-ROM. This will ensure that everything possible is being done to keep your anonymity.

    MITM protection
    As far as we know, we're the only provider that has protection against Man-In-The-Middle attacks. The OpenPGP-encryption will always protect the contents of your email, but to protect your identity and to protect against MITM-attacks you must have another crypto layer. Most providers use SSL for this, but SSL is not always secure enough.

    USB Key option
    If you purchase this option, your email account will become even more secure, because it will be impossible to login without your USB key inserted into the USB-port.

    Other features
    True end-to-end security
    Anonymous email headers
    ....
  • np||

    ^ that was supposed to be in the Lavabit thread

  • GPZsug||

    Our rights are not inviolate.

    No shit. That's the problem.

  • John||

    What a weird and pathetic thing to say. He didn't just say that he wanted Assage killed. He said he couldn't wait to write the defense of it. He loves being a toady and can't wait to do it more often.

    And ever notice that leftist douche bags never get fired no matter how offensive they are? If John Stossle or Jeff Greenfield has tweeted this about Cindy Sheehan in 07, their careers would have ended that day. But this gets a "it was personal account so not our problem" from Time. So what someone does on their own time doesn't matter anymore? Really? I guess that Philadelphia Eagle who dropped the N bomb at that concert need not worry anymore.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wasn't there a rather large outcry from the Left when Sarah Palin called for similar treatment of Assange?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Palin accused Assange of treason which sort of requires one to owe allegiance to betrayed nation-state.

    Assange is an Australian. Palin is an idiot. World keeps right on spinnin'.

    Palin also called on the US to hunt Assange down using all means necessary.

  • John||

    She never said he was guilty of treason. She said he was effectively an operative of Al Quada and thus the government should treat him like one.

    It is amazing how nothing Palin says is ever remembered accurately.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's so much better.

    Thank gawd we have a Palin scholar here to remind us of the truth.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's kind of a muddle. Palin came very close, and Mike Huckabee around the same time said that Manning should be charged with treason, so the confusion is understandable.

    Joe Liebermann is the only big name I recall saying that Assange should be charged with treason.

  • Irish||

    She never said he was guilty of treason. She said he was effectively an operative of Al Quada and thus the government should treat him like one.

    It's unbelievable that you somehow think that this is a point in Sarah Palin's favor.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Technically Irish, it helps a bit.

    I'd say it's better to be a warmonger than a warmonger and an idiot.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    It's unbelievable that you somehow think that this is a point in Sarah Palin's favor.

    Is John saying that it is a point in her favor?

    If she said Assange was guilty of treason that would be an idiotic statement since he's not a US citizen. If she said he was abetting terrorism that's a more reasonable statement from someone with that kind of worldview.

    She's wrong, but she didn't say something that stupid.

  • Anonymous Coward||

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There's an outcry from the left every time Sarah Palin says anything.

  • cw||

    It's amazing that a man ostensibly on the left would advocate trusting the feds' decisions regarding due process.

  • John||

    They just don't care. They didn't just let the mask slip, they threw it on the ground and stomped on it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Have you been living in a cave the past 5 years?

    Post-9/11 leftism is all statism, all the time. There are no bleeding hearts left.

  • cw||

    Maybe I should have prefaced it "the classical left." The ACLU seems to care about due process, and I'd say they represent the "classical left."

    Maybe they don't care anymore, and it just goes to show that allegiance matters more than principles.

    I believe Eugene Debs cared about due process.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    "the classical left."

    Robespierre?

  • cw||

    C'mon, people. I'm talking about the "Question Authority" left.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    You mean the ones with Mao's Red Book and the Che shirts?

  • cw||

    *Sigh* I was just trying to be generous to the left. But you're right; they've always been horribly inconsistent.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The "classic rock" Left, then? They haven't been heard from since Bob Seger was selling out stadiums.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    "the classical left."

    Robespierre?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Two female Russian athletes kiss on the podium at Moscow Games; was it for gay rights?

    The news came as two female Russian athletes kissed on the winner's podium at the World Athletics Championships yesterday - sparking a huge debate on Twitter and other media about whether it was in protest at the government's anti-gay law.

    But sources in the Russian camp claimed Kseniya Ryzhova and Tatyana Firova - who had just won gold in the 4x400 metres relay - were just exchanging a congratulatory kiss and there was no political message involved.

    Yeah, I buy that. Gay activists tend to see the political in everything and isn't it normal in some cultures to kiss as a sign of friendship and affection?

  • John||

    Yes it is. And shockingly not every same sex kiss is the gay.

  • Hyperion||

    some cultures kiss as a sign of friendship and affection

    On the lips? Where? I'm just curious. In Brazil, friends and family kiss on both sides of the face(not two men), but never on the mouth.

  • Jon Lester||

    As I understand it, the actual legislation at issue has nothing to do with public displays of affection by couples, gay or straight.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I clicked on that "Tread on Me" link and got this far (para 2):

    America was born from resistance to tyranny, and our skepticism of authority is a healthy tradition. But we’re pretty free. And the “don’t tread on me” slippery-slopers on both ends of the political spectrum tend to forget that Big Government helps protect other important rights. Like the right of a child to watch a marathon or attend first grade without getting killed — or, for that matter, the right to live near a fertilizer factory without it blowing up your house.

    DOOOOOOOOOOMED, we are.

  • John||

    By that definition, North Korea is one of the freest nations on earth.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So.. he's citing three examples where Big Government actually failed to protect people as feathers in its cap?

  • cw||

    You'd think that hundreds of thousands of pages of codified legislation, and millions of regulatory rules, would be sufficient if Big Gov. actually worked like the left claims it does.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Big Government helps protect other important rights. Like the right of a child to watch a marathon or attend first grade without getting killed

    If the government puts its boot on your neck hard enough, everybody will be safe all the time! It makes perfect sense!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Unless the child in question is in Pakistan or Yemen, then all bets are off.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Also, I feel dirty for letting Time get that page view.

  • Hyperion||

    I see that Tonys mom let him have a few minutes of internet time again, and as always, he isn't smart enough to use it to, I dunno, try to get a job? So the rest of us continue to have to support his worthless behind. Instead he uses it in a lame attempt to support his statist masters and their boot licking followers. What a loser.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Tony doesn't come around as frequently as he used to. But at least when he does he stays on topic. I'm sure he's a decent enough person in real life and I actually don't dislike him personally.

    I've come to appreciate him a lot more since Palin's Buttplug and Redefining Marriage just shit on every thread with the sole purpose of ruining it.

  • Hyperion||

    Tony doesn't come around as much because he used to have a job. Worthless job as some type of economic analyst, or so he said. Of course, in a bad economy like this, jobs that contribute nothing to anyone like that, don't last.

    So now, Tony has a sad.

    But apparently, you haven't read enough of his posts. He will go completely unhinged at times. You must have missed the one where he posted pictures of high tech weapons and told us all that his master, Obama, was going to use those on all of us.

    Tony still loves him some global warming and social justice. You see, it's the fault of the climate and us greedy libertarians that he's a loser.

    Retarded marriage is a spoof, some regular poster here is doing that, I don't know who, but it's not a real person.

    Buttplug probably works for the government. And he's a huge Obama supporter and progressive hack.

  • John C. Randolph2||

    Why in the hell can't people like that just go find themselves a dominatrix to deal with their need to obey somebody, and leave the rest of us out of it?

    -jcr

  • Hyperion||

    I am thinking that this guy and Tony both fanaticize about getting ass raped by some really fugly and masculine butch dyke.

  • affenkopf||

    Meanwhile Glenn Greenwald's partner got detained. for 9 hours in London and questioned under the British terrorism act (without the right to a lawyer of course and it would have been a criminal offense to refuse to cooperate). He was then released while all his valuables were confiscated.

    A great lesson to journalists about what can happen to family & loved ones when they piss of the state.

  • Hyperion||

    I am not surprised by this at all, and I was suspecting that all of this was headed that direction. Also, you can bet this had nothing to do with Britain and was a directive by the US.

    With all the data that the NSA has on all of us now, you can fully expect that anyone having any affiliation with libertarian political views in any way, are going to start being harassed by the govrenment in one way or the other.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Also, you can bet this had nothing to do with Britain and was a directive by the US.

    Those aren't mutually exclusive. Cameron and BO are practically butt-buddies.

  • np||

    There was also this incident when he initially broke the story:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....o-him.html

    “When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”
  • np||

    Our rights are not inviolate. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter.


    Rights are by definition inviolate.

    This whole Oliver Wendell Holmes fire-in-a-crowded theater shtick has got to die, but it seems like it never will unfortunately.

    First, the reason why it's unacceptable in the usual context is because of the disturbance the person saying it is causing to other patrons and the property owner. It has nothing to do with speech itself.

    Second, the harm such a panic would cause in the theater should not even matter. What really matters is: does the property owner allow it, and did the patrons sign up for it?

    Suppose the theater owner did allow it and informed them of such, with an explicit disclaimer for example, when the patrons bought the tickets. Then yes, falsely shouting fire, even if it did cause a panic, would then be acceptable

  • seguin||

    Michael Grunwald is the Cheryl Tunt of politics. When he sees a boot stamping on a human face forever, he gets aroused.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Let's make this a bit more accurate...

    Michael Grunwald is the Cheryl Tunt of politics. When he sees a boot stamping on a human face forever, he gets aroused.

    Looks good to me.

  • MappRapp||

    SOunds like some pretty crazy smack down to me dude.

    www.Prime-Anon.tk

  • Fluffy||

    What's amazing about this is that Assange hasn't done anything lately. He helped Snowden a little, but his assistance was ultimately irrelevant.

    What put Assange in the news? Why was Grunwald pissed? What did Assange say or do in the last 48 hours to deserve death?

    Answer: he said something positive about Rand Paul.

    That's what Grunwald thinks deserves death.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    To be fair, we beat up Woodrow Wilson and Olliver Wendell Holmes constantly despite them not doing anything recently.

  • Fluffy||

    Right, but Twitter's not like that.

    A Twitter post like Grunwald's is supposed to be topical, and is almost certainly reactive.

    Something put the subject of Assange in front of him, and he reacted to it. So the question is, what something?

  • np||

  • Lord Humungus||

    As the Goldwater era Reagen said - "those who would rather live on their knees than die on their feet..."

    damn these cowards to hell.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The civil liberties purists of the ACLU are just as extreme as the gun purists of the NRA, or the anti-regulatory purists in business groups like the Club for Growth.

    An unfortunately common viewpoint these days: the notion that any person who has so much as a sliver of principle in him is an "extremist" and a "purist". I wonder if these limpdicks have any idea where they'd be right now without the "purists" standing up for them in spite of the fact that they're pathetic douche bags.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I take comfort in knowing that this asshole already suffers in hell. He works for Time!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Update: A Time spokesperson says, "Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views."

    Actions speak louder than words. TIME Saying they don't agree with what he tweeted, when everyone who quotes it quotes it as, "Michael Grunwald of TIME", is completely hollow.

    My understanding is that Weigel was fired for calling the subjects of his stories "rat-fuckers", etc.--in what he thought was a semi-private chat room.

    What Grunwald did was much worse. Weigel never called for anybody to be killed. Weigel didn't proudly tweet it to the world. Grunwald did both. I've got a lot more respect for the Washington Post, right now, than I do for TIME. That's for sure.

  • Free Society||

    The civil liberties purists of the ACLU are just as extreme as the gun purists of the NRA, or the anti-regulatory purists in business groups like the Club for Growth.

    But none are a bigger threat than the government power purists like Grunwald.

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

  • Gorilla tactics||

    I dunno...what about those CSPI fascists?

  • Goldwin Smith||

    So basically Mike is a Greenwald that is a total statist fuck as supposed to one that actually takes all the civil liberties stuff seriously.

  • robc||

    Our rights are not inviolate

    Actually, that is exactly what a right is.

    Inalienable too.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Not all rights. Property rights are alienable. Right of first refusal is alienable.

  • Paul.||

    ust as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater

    Wow, commentariat completely forgot we have a drinking game on this phrase.

  • Invisible Finger||

    (Maybe not the anti-Semitic stuff but otherwise I asked for it.)"

    I would think espousing SS tactics would be anti-Semitic in itself.

    Self-loathing of this sort can only be approached in two ways: Psychoanalysis or scorn.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement