UPDATE May 11, 2010: I asked the question below: "Ms. Kagan is an openly practicing homosexual, is she not?" Even though I phrased it as a question, I think it wise to clarify here. I was told in the mainstream news that she is, but it turns out many are reporting that if she is a practicing homosexual, she hasn't stated it publicly, as in "coming out" as the homosexuals call it.
Tom Usher wrote or added | What is this "like and trust Clinton & Obama" stuff?
Hey Tom, that was a bit confusing. Greenwald is quoting Matt Yglesias: "Yesterday on Twitter, Matt Yglesias supplied the rationale for this mentality: "Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama.""
Okay, so, the actual quote is: "Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust, and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama," and Glenn added the [Kagan] because Glenn knows the proper use of straight brackets. I didn't go look at Matt's post. I'm taking your word for it. I stand corrected. I repent of it.
Thank you for pointing that out. I like that! I like how you did it, Rose. I wish others would take that approach.
(Here's the rest of my comment the way it was before Rose clarified. Let me say that it was a millisecond where I incorrectly assumed Glenn had made a punctuation error concerning the parentheses. I should have overcome though since he had placed the quotation marks where he had.)
Why does Glenn Greenwald like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? They disagree with pretty much everything he cares about, save about one issue I can think of: sexual orientation. Why does he trust them? They've both shown a huge capacity for blatant lying and ducking incredibly important issues, such as that they have zero evidence that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program but rather every reason to know that the Mossad and Likud and American Neocons and the like have been drumming up the same style of lies used as a pretexts for invading not only Iraq but Afghanistan in the first place (following Cheney's and Rumsfeld's lead), when it was Iran that the Jewish Zionist-Neocons always had in their bomb sights.
Come on, Glenn. You can do better, can't you? Your two main articles on Elena Kagan don't even mention Israel, Zionism, or Iran. She's a Zionist, isn't she?
Also, why have your long, ostensibly thorough, articles fail to mention freedom of speech? The issue of freedom of speech has been front and center on many other blogs. Is it implied by your mentioning civil liberties? I'm trying to think of it that way.
Many people seem legitimately concerned as to whether the Court will shift to not allowing religious folks openly to state that in their religion, homosexuality is sin. Ms. Kagan is an openly practicing homosexual, is she not? So do civil liberties include freedom to say that and the freedom of religion to exercise that spiritual belief, or are we to witness the type of religious persecution that led many to travel to these shores in the first place, such as various peace churches. (Not every "Christian" who came to these shores burned witches at the stake, as I know you know just as well as do I.)
You raised the issue of detainee abuses and Bush-43's imperial presidency, but that neoconservatism is the same as for Clinton and Obama right now and the same as Zionism in general.
It's also interesting that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was the issue concerning Kagan's caving in at Harvard over military recruiters at Harvard Law School rather than the anti-war aspect, which is infinitely more important. It isn't doing anyone a favor to let him or her join the militarists. It's rather soul-killing in very fact.
What happened to the anti-war movement and "modern" progressivism? It was the "liberals" of the 1960's who ended the despicable Vietnam War, which would have been despicable even if there had been no Operation Phoenix or any other Bush-43 type war crimes. Did you mention war in the anti-war sense? I didn't see it. Perhaps you aren't as anti-war as I thought.
Does it concern you at all that if Kagan is chosen that there would be three Jews on the court but no WASP's who founded the country? I'm not interested in an ethnic litmus test, but I thought "Progressives" were for affirmative action to some degree. Would this be going to the extreme in the opposite direction, or has affirmative action been thrown out only concerning the Supreme Court.
Regardless, I see strong fascistic leanings in this Elena Kagan person.
I read the following. If I missed any articles that cover what seem to be holes referred to above, I'd be interested in being directed to those: