100 years of trying to explain the difference between good and bad IRA men

By Martyn Turner (here)

Mike Burke, a lecturer in Politics in Canada, wrote on Anthony McIntyre's blog, the Pensive Quill:

"How could the Irish state… both celebrate its insurrectionary origins and conduct a counter-insurgency campaign against the Provisional IRA, which claimed to be the direct lineal descendant of the insurrectionary impulse that had given birth to the state?"

This is the southern state’s current and constant dilemma.

"So take it down from the mast, Irish traitors,
/It’s the flag we Republicans claim.
It can never belong to Free Staters,
For you’ve brought on it nothing but shame. Then leave it to those who are willing/
To uphold it in war and in peace,
/To those men who intend to do killing
 Until England’s tyranny cease."

Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) and gate-keeping the Snowden leaks

This is the charge repeatedly laid at Greenwald's door. Andrew Sullivan said it:

What the public knows and does not know about the NSA is determined by @ggreenwald, with no checks and balances: http://t.co/H5xAqP1RUb
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) May 29, 2014

Greenwald flatly denies this charge, as he did here:

@sullydish That's false: 1) I collaborate w/editors & colleagues on every story; 2) WashPost, NYT, PP & Guardian all have much > 10,000 docs
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 29, 2014

Yet Glenn Greenwald has always insisted on full editorial control. He started blogging in 2005 and by the time he reached Salon he maintained the self-direction and individualism of an independent blogger. This independence continued with his move to the Guardian. As he said:

"I will write daily at the U.S. edition of The Guardian, which is based in New York, and will do so exactly the same way as I have here [Salon]: with full editorial independence and the same type of readership involvement and support upon which I’ve long relied, including a vibrant comment section. In addition to the daily writing, I’ll also write a more traditional once-a-week column there."

Andrew Sullivan further wrote here:

"The way the US government has behaved since 9/11 – its outrageous and criminal secret activity – seems to me to tilt the question in favor of the whistle-blower and the journalist, and some legal leniency – certainly for the journalist. But in all times there is a balance between these two contradictory democratic necessities – government secrecy and transparency – and at some point, the rule of law is the rule of law. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than all the alternatives. 

Right now, for example, what the public knows and does not know about the NSA is determined by Glenn Greenwald. He has in his possession vast troves of information that he is keeping secret, until he decides it will becomes public. He is picking and choosing what to divulge and doing so over an extended period of time. In that sense, he is close to being an alternative government, but without any internal checks and balances, and with no recourse for the public through the democratic system. What Mike is insisting is that this too is a genuine problem from the point of view of the public interest. Who gets to decide what the public knows? Right now, it’s Glenn. And I bet his security system for his data is extremely strong. He doesn’t want any leaks either, does he?"

A good blog is your own private Wikipedia

Writing in the New Yorker, Ian Crouch (@iancrouch) wrote an article with an interesting headline, 'The curse of reading and then forgetting.' Ian Crouch explained a recent experience of reading and suddenly remembering:

"Recently, a colleague mentioned that she had been rereading Richard Hughes’s “A High Wind in Jamaica,” which was first published in 1929 and is about a group of creepy little kids who become the unwanted wards of sad, listless pirates. She praised it, and her recommendation sent me to Amazon. The title was familiar, as was the vibrant cover of the New York Review Books reissue. One cent and $3.99 for shipping, and the book was on its way. A couple of weeks later, I opened to the first page and started reading. By the fifth page, I realized that I had read this novel before, and pretty recently, about three years ago, when another colleague had also praised it and lent me his copy."

Blogging has enormous depth, Ctd

I've looked at the US bloggers Andrew Sullivan (@SullyDish)and Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) and Christopher Hitchens who all talked about the depth of blogging. I also looked at what Paul Krugman had to say about blogging. I've also looked the the UK legal bloggers David Allen Green (@JackofKent) and Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1). The internet has had an incredible democratic and levelling effect. As Paul Krugman said:

"Academic credentials are neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for having your ideas taken seriously... if someone without formal credentials consistently makes trenchant, insightful observations, he or she has earned the right to be taken seriously, regardless of background."

All the above have attested to the depth, authority and veracity of the new medium. Daniel Hannan (@DanHannanMEP) added his voice to the debate:

"The separate categorisation of columnists, reporters, bloggers and interested readers is becoming meaningless. Every citizen is now a potential journalist. News and opinion are a conversation. We still hear occasional complaints from Leftie pundits that online media “lack quality control”. In fact, the dialectic element of blogging ensures a higher standard of accuracy than before. Mistakes are ruthlessly exposed and, because of the sheer number of outlets, a plausible new theory can spread with previously unimagined speed. 

Blogs have improved veracity, quality and diversity. They have not led to the segregation by opinion that many predicted: Leftists and Rightists argue online in a way that never happened when people took just one newspaper. It's true that bloggers, being human, are as prone to cruelty, stupidity and error as anyone else. But it has never been easier to go elsewhere: more people are reading more news and comment than at any time in history."

On what blogging is all about, Greenwald put it best:

"I began [blogging] without any plan to become a journalist or writer, but simply to participate as a citizen."

The best in legal commentary via @JackofKent

Won't be long. But for legal comment follow: @AdamWagner1 @JoshuaRozenberg @carlgardner @Familoo @copyrightgirl @Lyndon_Harris @DBanksy
— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) January 29, 2014

David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) (@JackofKent) is away from Twitter and the blogosphere. He's writing (a "wretched") book.

Blogging has enormous depth, Ctd Modern day pamphleteers

Legal blogger Adam Wagner talking about social media for law professionals here

David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) (@JackofKent) is a legal bloggers who began writing online in 2007 when he created his personal blog Jack of Kent, to promote the public understanding of law. He said that blogging is like being a modern day pamphleteer. He said:

"The elements of speed and self-publication in blogging make it, in my view, akin to pamphleteering... blogging is akin to pamphleteering, then it is pamphleteering with electronic footnotes."

Christopher Hitchens - Encouraging signs of polarisation

In his book, 'Letters to a Young Contrarian', Christopher Hitchens said (here and here):

"I have a dear friend in Jerusalem, that home of rectitude and certainty that is so often presented to us as “holy” for no better reason than its unenviable position as “home” to three (highly schismatic but self-described) “mono”theisms. His name is Dr. Israel Shahak; for many years he did exemplary service as chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. Nothing in his life, as a Jewish youth in pre-1940 Poland and subsequent survivor of indescribable privations and losses, might be expected to have conditioned him to welcome the disruptive. Yet on some occasions when I have asked him for his impression of events, he has calmly and deliberately replied: “There are some encouraging signs of polarisation.” Nothing flippant inheres in this remark; a long and risky life has persuaded him that only an open conflict of ideas and principles can produce any clarity. Conflict may be painful, but the painless solution does not exist in any case and the pursuit of it leads to the painful outcome of mindlessness and pointlessness; the apotheosis of the ostrich."

Paul Krugman - You don't need to be an academic to be taken seriously online

Paul Krugman explains on his New York Times that you don't need fancy academic letters behind your name to be taken as a serious, credible and authoritative voice online and on the blogosphere. He said: 

"But academic credentials are neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for having your ideas taken seriously. If a famous professor repeatedly says stupid things, then tries to claim he never said them, there’s no rule against calling him a mendacious idiot — and no special qualifications required to make that pronouncement other than doing your own homework.

Conversely, if someone without formal credentials consistently makes trenchant, insightful observations, he or she has earned the right to be taken seriously, regardless of background.

One of the great things about the blogosphere is that it has made it possible for a number of people meeting that second condition to gain an audience. I don’t care whether they’re PhDs, professors, or just some guy with a blog — it’s the work that matters."

Read in full here. 

 

An Open Cover Letter

  

Hey guys,

First up: I love the Dish. I love what it does for Dishheads, non-Dishheads, for myself, my thinking and for driving fresh thought and for creating new models of writing and online journalism.

But why would the Dish that does so much to contribute authentic writing to the internet want to be in any way associated with me, Brian Spencer - a dude from Ireland?

Christopher Hitchens - The authority of bloggers

At 7 minutes 30 seconds in the video above and here Christopher Hitchens talks about the authority of the online writers.

"I became a journalist because I didn't want to have to rely on the press for information. I'm very sorry for people who do think that's what they're getting when they buy the New York Times in the morning. I only read it to make sure I know what everyone else thinks is going on. It's useful to know what people think is the news. None of my sources are from the press... Yes, from bloggers and their allies I get most of what I think I need to know and I'm very happy at the possibility of, the evident likelihood now of the decline of the networks and of the flagship newspapers, which seem to me to be engines of reassurance and consensus and bad writing, poor English. Let it all die, I don't give a damn."

In an earlier post here on how Hitchens write, Christopher said: "I don’t use any of the new technology stuff."

Writing a Blog is an "Art Form"

Andrea Tomkins asks here: "Is blogging an art form?" She responds:

"I think so. If art is defined as self expression, I think it can certainly be argued that blogging is art. There is, after all, an art to blogging. Just like someone can pick up a brush and express themselves with paint on canvas, I can do the same using digital tools to weave a picture out of words, sound, photo, and video. And it’s a picture that grows a little bit every day.

I think that if you pour yourself into something, and it’s truly the work of your hand working in tandem with your head and your heart, it must be art. If an artist took a giant canvas and painted something on it every day for the rest of her life, is it art? What if she decoupaged the odd receipt or bus ticket or photo in there. Is it still art?"

The legal blogger Kevin O'Keefe of LexBlog picked up on the analysis by Andrea and spun off some thoughts on how lawyers should blog. Here's some highlights for me; he said:

"Blog as you talk. It’s a conversation after all."

Also of great interest:

"Blog when you feel like it. If you’re blogging in a fashion that is true to yourself, you’ll find time for blogging and you’ll find blogging enoyable." 

"I hated to write articles. Still do. I think I have written one article in the last 10 years. Yet I have penned thousands of blog posts."

Kevin O'Keefe's blog post in full here.

'We're All Publishers Now' - Matt Mullenweg on Blogging

Thanks to the endless reaches of the internet 'we're all publishers now'.

What do I mean by this? Well, think about it. If you wanted to publish you're own written words and reach an audience you would have to produce pamphlets and thus employ the labour of a printer and his printing press. A costly business!