How Would A Patriot React?
New York Times best selling author Glenn Greenwald appears to have written a book in an attempt to lecture American patriots on how to act politically when his primary and preferred residence isn’t even within the United States – it’s actually in Brazil. Perhaps How Would An Expatriate Act would have been a more fitting title.
Several statements said book’s publisher, Working Assets, currently uses to promote the book and author appear to be false. And while Greenwald’s Liberal blogging buddies recently lambasted conservative author Ann Coulter for alleged ethical transgressions – lifting copy from her columns for inclusion in her latest book, Godless, it seems as much as ten-percent or more of How Would A Patriot Act was actually "culled" from previously published material on the author’s popular blog, Unclaimed Territory, available free to all on the Internet.
He must be a liberal given his apparent fondness for re-cycling.
New York Times best selling author, Glenn Greenwald may also have allowed readers to assume something of an exaggerated perception of his professional credential with a prestigious New York City law firm. That’s less clear, but certainly Greenwald can clear it up. Still, once you get beyond Matthew Hale, the high profile case experience associated with Greenwald’s public image isn’t exactly obvious to even a somewhat more than casual observer. Perhaps that’s another item Greenwald will eventually get around to fleshing out.
There is evidence below of a larger effort to prop up both the book and his image as part of an orchestrated campaign to elevate his visibility and status and ensure that his anti-Bush punditry was picked up on by the MSM at a critical time.
Perhaps the above is how an honest and genuine patriot is supposed to act according to Greenwald, but it certainly differs significantly from my view.
On December 15th, 2005, prior to Greenwald beginning work on his book, he posted:
I am currently living most of the time in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (the rest in NYC).
Greenwald re-stated his preference for expatriate life in Brazil after completing work on his book in a May12, 2006 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle:
"Maybe I voted in some local elections," Greenwald said from Brazil, where he spends much of the year with his partner, David, who is Brazilian.
Interesting given that all his PR and the public perception is that he is a working attorney in New York with nothing more than a delinquent license; however, his name no longer appears to be listed as a litigator with the firm Greenwald Christoph. Though his email does somehow manage to Google up Gang Bang Mail Squad, from his email address, gclaw.us doesn’t appear to exist.
It’s also made clear in the article that Greenwald’s image was manufactured by the ideologically driven liberal money machine behind his book’s publication, perhaps behind it as much, if not more so, than Greenwald.
"Patriot" is an offspring of Bay Area political activism and technology culture, and the rush to get it into print has a distinct purpose: To foster national debate about the Bush administration’s approach to post-Sept. 11 civil liberties, in particular the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program.
That "Patriot" is coming out next week in a 15th century medium is a calculated decision. Politically, said author Greenwald, it is easier to make a strong, cohesive argument in a book rather than in a three-paragraph burst on a blog. Plus, say marketers connected with the project, having a bound volume with your name on it makes it easier to build credibility with TV reporters and other "mainstream media" types still suspicious of bloggers.
The publishers continue to misstate Greenwald’s politics to gain credibility with moderate readers even today on their website:
one man’s transformation from apolitical centrist to citizen activist in defense of our Constitution.
However, the supposedly apolitical centrist certainly didn’t appear to be so when quoted extensively as an argumentative gay political activist and leader of an NYU student Gay rights group in the Washington Post circa 1993. The story is about a high-profile Colorado law firm and their ability to recruit at NYU after passage of a state constitutional amendment against gay rights. (Live link to article unavailable, but it can be purchased through the WaPo – I’ll quote more extensively than I otherwise would)
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) – Washington, D.C.
Author: Saundra Torry
Date: Aug 23, 1993
Perhaps the squabble at New York University started because Arnold & Porter has a 14-lawyer office in Denver. Or because most Colorado voters are conservative. Or because most NYU law professors aren’t…
Gay rights student activists argue that Arnold & Porter, which has been invited under the exception, really doesn’t qualify for it. Schools officials have engaged in "intrigue and deception" to mollify the prominent firm, said law student Glenn Greenwald of the school’s Lesbian and Gay Students group.
As of Friday, Arnold & Porter was planning to show up on the NYU campus this week to woo bright, young lawyers-to-be, including those with their eye on Denver.
And Greenwald and his group were readying a welcome. "We intend to have an aggressive and meaningful protest commensurate with how objectionable we believe their inclusion is," Greenwald promised.
In laymen’s terms, they’re angry and plan to demonstrate against the law firm and their school.
Last November, 53 percent of Colorado voters passed an amendment that would ban state and local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The amendment set off an outcry from national gay rights organizations and triggered a nationwide boycott of Colorado as a convention site.
Last spring, the issue erupted on the NYU law campus when the Lesbian and Gay Students began pressing for a policy to show that the law school "will not promote the commerce and economic prosperity of a state which, by constitutional amendment, discriminates," Greenwald said.
But Greenwald and his group were not impressed. "We knew they had one partner … spending some amount of time against Amendment 2," Greenwald said. "That does not represent an institutional commitment" to overturn it.
Greenwald argues that if Arnold & Porter did work against the amendment, it seems they’d be "proud to talk about it."
I’ve no problem with Greenwald’s position, it’s the manufacture of him as an apolitical centrist which I would point out. And as for the re-purposing of content from his public blog to get out a book, I’ll simply defer to Greenwald himself:
More than 200 readers volunteered to help him with research; he chose five. Over the next six weeks, he wrote 225 pages. Only about 10 percent of the content was culled from the blog, he estimated.
The publicity for the book also attempts to hold up Greenwald’s alleged moderate tone as a reason for his anti-Bush rhetoric to be taken so seriously.
Greenwald, 39, stood out among the bloggers she found, said Nix, who lives in Sausalito. He’s measured and is not a name-caller.
But the truth is, in January of 2006, adoring Greenwald fans were applauding him for his character assassination of conservatives prior to his being plucked up from, perhaps the unemployed expatriate lawyers line, to write a book.
Read more of Greenwald’s character assassination of these two clowns. They want to give it out, they can get it back. Greenwald is on point.
The irony is that, not only was Greenwald attacking pundits at the NRO, he also smeared the very prestigious law firm he points to on his resume as evidence of his legal bona fides:
Thursday, January 19, 2006
National Review’s new blog — A vile case study in GOP filth-peddling
National Review has created a museum dedicated to the Republican political gutter of the 1990s in the form of a new blog hosted by two of the trashy lowlifes who worked during the entire Clinton Presidency to turn our national political dialogue into one big Jerry Springer Show. The authors of the blog are George Conway III and his lovely wife, Kellyanne
This is the filth out of which the Conway couple emerged, and in which, along with so many self-righteous Bush-loving moralists, they continue to wallow.
Since the early-1990s, George Conway has been a partner at the prominent Manhattan law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, where he worked with rejected Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada (I was an Associate at that firm for a couple of years after law school in the mid-1990s but had minimal personal interaction with Conway and, to my recollection, none with Estrada)
Some tempered rhetoric, wouldn’t you agree? But what about those years at the prestigious law firm? Well, there is this from a comment posted on my blog said to be from a Greenwald email.
I worked at Wachtell, Lipton as a Summer Associate after my second year at NYU, as a pre-Bar Associate during my entire third year at NYU and once I graduated, and then as a practicing Litigation Associate once I was admitted to the New York Bar.
Anyone who says that I did not practice law there after I passed the bar is lying — and deliberately so, I would think, since nobody who says such a thing could possibly have any basis for knowing that.
It’s unclear how many hours he did enjoy being the legal equivalent of an intern at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (WLRK). But Greenwald is wrong, again, as there is a basis for knowing, assuming Greenwald wishes to sign a waiver. That’s all that would be required, according to my discussions with WLRK.
In any event, nothing at all appears for Glenn Greenwald through FindLaw, though I realize he was active and a record exists somewhere. But given this, what appears to be an official record with dates as recent as 2002, his WLRK relationship is listed as only running from 1994 – 1995 – 1995 being the same year he passed the bar. That would more or less jibe with his having been there as an intern and never having been taken on as an actual Associate, or only lasting a relatively short period of time. Quite honestly, I’m not sure.
Glenn Greenwald, (Member) born New York, N.Y., March 6, 1967; admitted to bar, 1995, New York, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; 1996, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; 1998, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; 2002, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Education: George Washington University (B.A., 1990); New York University School of Law (J.D., 1994). Member, New York University Law Review, 1992-1993. Recipient, American Jurisprudence Awards, Civil Procedure, Contracts and Property. Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 1994-1995.
Greenwald didn’t pass the bar until 1995. His actual time as a genuine Associate at WLRK, if any, doesn’t appear to be too much – and if the above is correct, certainly not the several years currently claimed on his wiki.
He worked for several years for the large New York law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, then co-founded the law firm of Greenwald Christoph. He litigated several cases with significant constitutional issues
It is possible that Greenwald did spend several years as an Associate at WLRK. But given what appear to be major inconsistencies between the Glenn Greenwald we’ve been told of and the one who actually exists, it isn’t far fetched to suggest everything should be in question when it comes to Greenwald. His blog is entitled Unclaimed Territory and it seems as though relevant, significant elements of his past and present may be as yet unclaimed in the public eye, as well.
No serious scholarly publications on the Constitution authored by Greenwald were uncovered during an academic search, though some have started to refer to him as a Constitutional Law expert. Based upon what, is far from clear.
Ultimately, in terms of weighing in as an allegedly objective political pundit and lecturing patriots on how to act politically in America, it might serve Greenwald if he actually started hanging around, if not actually in the country a little more. I’d argue an individuals actual experience, what country they reside in most of the year and how capable they are of being candid are factors to be taken into account when reading any pundit – assuming some actually do wade through his turgid prose.
Were I a patriot who plunked down two bits for his best selling book, I might be angry. Fortunately, I’m a patriot but no fool. The larger issue may be that if Greenwald is little more than an ever-increasingly shrill scam, what damage will he do to blogging on the Left – and possibly even on the Right in the end?
And that should tick every genuinely patriotic blogger off, regardless of their respective political views.
In conclusion, lately several liberal bloggers have been making the case that the MSM has been unfriendly to them, while giving conservative bloggers a pass. I disagree. But I would suggest that if that stop carelessly elevating star gazing stock manipulators to political strategists and resisted the temptation to enlist expatriates to write books lecturing Americans on patriotism, perhaps the MSM might start cutting them some perceived break.
Lord knows they’re certainly liberal enough to feel your pain.
Pardon the editorializing. It’s simply how this particular patriot chose to act.