[And Also: Opinio Juris touches upon the speech too (see, e.g., a comment with links here and the general discussion here, but not much of an analysis is really provided. The second link suggests it is bland and raises a lot of questions. It probably does and something like that is more useful to discuss than let's say contraceptives. And, do so by dealing with the details -- see that comment -- not some open-ended rhetoric.]
I have the famous comic strip on my wall about the person who won't go to bed because "someone is wrong on the Internet," but I don't take it enough to heart. Still, there is some value in interacting with others and even before the Internet, I personally used op-eds as launching boards to go through what I thought about various issues of the day.
And, some people matter more than any old person, including let's say Glenn Greenwald, who I repeatedly (until I stopped going, since it was just too much) who doesn't have enough perspective though some enjoy his attack dog approach. In a tweet, e.g., Chris Hayes cites Spencer Ackerman, a major commentator on political issues who was "appalled" at Eric Holder's speech. I'm appalled at his simplification. A comment there gets my sentiments fairly right:
Will continue to be a struggle. C'est la vie.
I have the famous comic strip on my wall about the person who won't go to bed because "someone is wrong on the Internet," but I don't take it enough to heart. Still, there is some value in interacting with others and even before the Internet, I personally used op-eds as launching boards to go through what I thought about various issues of the day.
And, some people matter more than any old person, including let's say Glenn Greenwald, who I repeatedly (until I stopped going, since it was just too much) who doesn't have enough perspective though some enjoy his attack dog approach. In a tweet, e.g., Chris Hayes cites Spencer Ackerman, a major commentator on political issues who was "appalled" at Eric Holder's speech. I'm appalled at his simplification. A comment there gets my sentiments fairly right:
I’m not being sarcastic and hostile because I disagree with your basic premise that there is government overreach occurring here. I’m being hostile and sarcastic because you took the quotation out of context, grossly oversimplified both the concept and the speech as a whole, and ignored the fact that he repeatedly cites Supreme Court precedent. Which means it isn’t unilateral, nor even unilateral unilateral unilateral.It is like when once I was criticized at Slate for being too "legalistic" in drawing lines in respect to Obama. Yeah, after years of me and others focusing on THE LAW as a major problem with Bush et. al., not just policy, which can be bad or good, but THE LAW, it matters a helluva lot that Obama is doing better in that department. The person and others cite innocents being killed. Their pacifism is duly noted. The war in Afghanistan killed innocents. Oh, that's not the same thing! Well, stop speaking in parody inducing hyperbole then.
Obama, Romney And Gingrich Agree: The Government Doesn’t Need A Court To Kill YouYes, if you point a gun at a police officer, the government doesn't need a court order to use lethal force. The headline is too general. The issue needs more nuance. It is the mentality of Brett here as to "racism." Simplistic to the extreme. The Administration needs to be pushed against and on matters of secrecy and failure of court access etc., they have done some real wrongs, but if you are not going to show the proper nuance here -- that annoys people and it is sort of my pet peeve but we want an Obama because he shows it (or do we? I wonder) -- it's an "behind me Satan!" type moment. It is counterproductive to the desired end, is it not? Well, I guess there will always be absolutists and people like me who are more "moderate." Sometimes, at least.
Will continue to be a struggle. C'est la vie.