historic courage: the short version

[click my spruced up screen shot from minute 5:11 of the keynote address video]


I want you to note the facial expression here, or go to the video itself and note Greenwald's face as he is being introduced and then again at the end of his address. Do you see any trace of smugness on him anywhere through his address? Do you catch any hint of a liar's glee over snowing his victims? Do you even note any moments where he appears to be acting in any manner that connotes arrogance or elevated status or gloating or anything suspicious or negative at all?

What about his tone? In the parts that were not garbled by the VOIP between Hamburg and Rio, are you noting his tone of voice? Did you hear any misplaced stridency? Did you hear any sour notes that would put his ingenuousness in question?

Did you note at any point where his face and his tone of voice were incongruent? I know it's a little difficult because the video goes out of phase with his words as we get further into the talk, but I think it's still possible to get a general feel for this.

These are important factors.

Did you notice that one of the first things he did here was discuss the perfidy of Palantir? Do you know that Palantir is a venture that sprang from the fellows from whom Omidyar bought PayPal, not Omidyar? I mention this bit because there has been an effort to associate Omidyar, ergo Greenwald, with the activities of Palantir. Granted, I have been doing a lot of my checking on Wikipedia for this stuff, and Wikipedia is total crap that should never be relied on for anything vital, but I think their information about companies' structures can be expected to be at least mostly accurate. The crap starts entering into it where there are not public documents to directly refute their information. It's hard to force factuality on them unless it's stuff this blatant. So I think you can just go there and check the names and realize that the ugliness of the Palantir guys' gig is no smudge on Omidyar, let alone Glenn.

So, now, do you realize how great it is that he did not whine that Omidyar is not Palantir?

He's giving the facts that both address the creepy and paranoid criticisms and ignore them... which will definitely piss off assholes like Sibel Edmonds even more. She will not be thankful he didn't use this opportunity to wax sanctimonious regarding his detractors.

Did you notice how he repeatedly turned negatives for us into positives for us? How he spoke to what's best in people instead of turning the light of any form of self-righteousness on our failings?

Did you notice the whistleblowers he named as heroes? Did you notice he only named ones who actually did something more substantive than call attention to themselves? While there are many more who have done quite a bit, he kept it clear away from those who only came out and said, in effect, "I worked for the feds and they did something bad." Even when we have been given the idea of what bad thing the feds did that the whistleblower purports to want to make public, any attempt to get at specifics we can really use is met with an invocation of their security clearance or their "oath"... in other words, pretty much all we get to hear from them is what we'd've been able to hear from them in a book the feds had approved for them to publish. Nothing we can take to court, even if court won't cooperate. Nothing we can take to court and make the court look bad for not cooperating with.

Yes. Most of us believed them to one degree or another, but, no, we were not given the tools, even a toothpick, with which to fight the corruption, and these abuses of power. As you well know, this has griped me to pieces for years and years and years, but now to have one of the worst of these whistle-bereft "whistleblowers" be out there slinging mud for all she's worth at, not just Glenn, but even Snowden, too—and will you let me know what happens when you google "omidyar paypal"? because all that came up when I did it was Sibel Edmonds [!!!] and *what do you make of that?—is just too outrageous to be borne... at least by me.

Earlier I caught a glimpse of some commenters on a supposedly truth-oriented site and, OMFG, it appears she's held sway over the IQs of more people than I can stand to think about. Just, please, if you still feel there is room to consider her position in this matter, after all my scattershot points on it, can you come up with some point or some independent source that really might give it weight? I'm cool with people disagreeing with me so long as they are not just rapping down shit they've been trained to think, or citing what some asshole has been trained to think, or trolling for whatever reason. Not that there mayn't yet be secret things about which we have no way of knowing that might make these people less moral than it appears, even with our eagle eyes on them, even with all our snooping around the tubes to make sure of their stuff, but, seriously, seriously, seriously, what can give rise to aspersions cast by people like Sibel Edmonds beside envy and a default inability to believe in real courage, real probity, real human decency?

Yeah, yeah, she claims to have a retired NSA source. Whoa! That's trustworthy as all get out, ain't it?

And, in the end, even supposing that all these people are part of some really florid, creepy and implausible limited hangout, what about what has actually come from them can be seen as nefarious, as not altruistic, as not deserving of inspiring us to do better? Do you see where people's mental conditioning and personal weaknesses taint this world? Do you know that's why I come here every day?

* * * * *

[* I make of that that Google is pushing Sibel's shit, because neither of the search words should haul her up, even on the first page of results. It should bring up news about Omidyar and/or PayPal, their Wikipedia entries, their sites, all sorts of shit should come up before you ever got to Sibel's bullshit, but no, not for me it didn't.

And, even being only subjected to the first few words on that search engine return, without even clicking on it, I see yet another baldfaced lie/smear coming from her that is easily shown to be false, the shit about Levchin, on top of all the whoppers we've heard in videos of her invective. So, now, on top of wondering how Corbett suddenly became so relaxed about his need for funding, I must also wonder what Sibel is doing to stop being so freaked about hers.

I've mentioned before that the main reason bloggers go off on these psychedelic smear campaigns, despite it putting themselves in such a bad light, despite the smears being easy to debunk, is to get attention, any attention, even negative attention ups their rankings and/or income, so maybe that's her motive, but, seriously, how does even that translate into Sibel's puny site coming up first on that search term? It doesn't. It doesn't unless Google wants it to.]