Monday, March 3, 2014

The Hard Left Falls Flat

CounterPunch is a site I have no problems linking to, but Douglas Valentine's moronic piece condemning "Glenn Greenwald and his sidekick Jeremy Scahill [for] see[ing] nothing wrong with Pierre Omidyar having $8 billion, and not using it to house, feed, clothe and heal the poor" is too much to bear— Glenn Greenwald and the Myth of Income Inequality.

"For the poor you have always with you," we read in John 12:8. While the author is rightly "always glad to give Greenwald and Scahill a free pass, simply because they risk their lives daily while exposing the assassination tactics of the NSA," he cannot seem to stomach the facts that "Greenwald, quire properly, portrays his big time benefactor as 'altruistic,' while Scahill characterizes Omidyar as a 'visionary'" and that "eminent capitalist economist Ralph Nader [who earned this blogger's vote in '08] has also appealed to 'moderately enlightened' billionaires like Omidyar to save the American political system itself."

Is Pierre Omidyar to be condemned simply because he is successful? Is Jeremy Scahill's work, like Dirty Wars (2013), watched this past weekend through the magic of Netflix, to be condemned just because a successful Persian supported it?

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Post a Comment

<< Home