The Judge always speaks about free speech and yet he does not allow much on his own website. Few critical comments appear and in fact few comments at all appear because any possibility that any comment might push back against his program is the last thing he wants it seems. I do not expect that any of the Judge’s gatekeepers will allow any of this to be published.
There is a tiresome aspect to Judging Freedom that is the result of the echo chamber of having the same guests who repeat the same thing in response to the Judge’s same questions which he repeats day after day. There is no desire to dig deeper mostly because he seems ill informed about most things. On the one hand he admits correctly to the existence of a deep state and yet he expects that one person whether it is Trump or some one else to bring to an end the ideology of US hegemony. But he fails to explain how any of this is going to get done. This is part of his intellectual dishonesty. He is always carping on the sidelines about this Trump appointment or other but he never offers any selections of his own. He was against the Matt Gaetz appointment even though Glenn Greenwald and others though he was by far one of the better ones. So Judge how would you reform the Justice Dept. & FBI? How would you root out the Deep State? By making no attempt to outline a response turns you into a dishonest thinker or at least into one who is not a serious thinker. The Judge is more concerned about how many people follow him than what comes out of his mouth. He likes to whine on the sidelines because, frankly, it does not require any serious thinking or reading on his part. Whether it is Zionism or American hegemony–these are ideologies that will not just disappear. How will you uproot these ideologies and prevent them from being actualized?. And yet time and time again the Judge fails to address the most obvious question—and if he does not have an response then maybe he needs to examine the limits of his own thinking. Like most lawyers he is not a deep thinker nor is he well read. He shows no sense that he has any understanding of the history of power in the west—no intellectual framework that would allow him to pose more insightful questions. Has he read Foucault on power and govermentality, Agamben on the state of exception, Zizeck, etc—clearly not. Russia is a nation that has gone through 2 of the most radical changes in the last 100 years—1917 & 1991—and survived and made progress–it has much to teach us in the West but does the Judge or any of his guest spend any time educating us on this—clearly not. He needs to up his game if he expects serious minded people to take him seriously.
The Judge always speaks about free speech and yet he does not allow much on his own website. Few critical comments appear and in fact few comments at all appear because any possibility that any comment might push back against his program is the last thing he wants it seems. I do not expect that any of the Judge’s gatekeepers will allow any of this to be published.
There is a tiresome aspect to Judging Freedom that is the result of the echo chamber of having the same guests who repeat the same thing in response to the Judge’s same questions which he repeats day after day. There is no desire to dig deeper mostly because he seems ill informed about most things. On the one hand he admits correctly to the existence of a deep state and yet he expects that one person whether it is Trump or some one else to bring to an end the ideology of US hegemony. But he fails to explain how any of this is going to get done. This is part of his intellectual dishonesty. He is always carping on the sidelines about this Trump appointment or other but he never offers any selections of his own. He was against the Matt Gaetz appointment even though Glenn Greenwald and others though he was by far one of the better ones. So Judge how would you reform the Justice Dept. & FBI? How would you root out the Deep State? By making no attempt to outline a response turns you into a dishonest thinker or at least into one who is not a serious thinker. The Judge is more concerned about how many people follow him than what comes out of his mouth. He likes to whine on the sidelines because, frankly, it does not require any serious thinking or reading on his part. Whether it is Zionism or American hegemony–these are ideologies that will not just disappear. How will you uproot these ideologies and prevent them from being actualized?. And yet time and time again the Judge fails to address the most obvious question—and if he does not have an response then maybe he needs to examine the limits of his own thinking. Like most lawyers he is not a deep thinker nor is he well read. He shows no sense that he has any understanding of the history of power in the west—no intellectual framework that would allow him to pose more insightful questions. Has he read Foucault on power and govermentality, Agamben on the state of exception, Zizeck, etc—clearly not. Russia is a nation that has gone through 2 of the most radical changes in the last 100 years—1917 & 1991—and survived and made progress–it has much to teach us in the West but does the Judge or any of his guest spend any time educating us on this—clearly not. He needs to up his game if he expects serious minded people to take him seriously.