I think your read on why Yglesias and others have been posting about the lab leak theory is misguided. It's not out of a sense of contrarianism, nor is it a culture war proxy. Rather it's because the meta conversation about the hypothesis--which featured a year of left-of-center types making strong claims about it being a conspiracy theory--evinces an unhealthy feature of left discourse.
'...which featured a year of left-of-center types making strong claims about it being a conspiracy theory...'
I agree with much of what you said, but there was so much junk science being peddled by right-of-center types this past year--ivermectin! HCQ! etc.--that the lab leak hypothesis may have been swept into the same garbage bin. And it's possible that some on the left were alarmed that COVID-19 was being weaponized by the right to bash not only the Chinese govt. but also Asian-Americans.
Several writers at *Vox* and elsewhere have admitted that some of their early writings on the pandemic used faulty assumptions. That shows a healthy feature of left discourse--evidence-based policy making and a willingness to change one's mind.
I dont see how the quotes you provide show Greenwald was relying on IC info to conclude the lab leak theory is viable. The theory’s revival seems to have stemmed from a paper by Nicholas Wade in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. As you know, he was a NYT science reproter. The idea was discussed before Wade by many, but this seemed to lead to a major reconsideration with some virologists jumping in after to agree that the lab leak theory was possible in the sense of not being clearly proven false. Now, I agree with you, and contra Greenwald, that this is NOW being driven by concerns very loosely connected to science, and the IC is now OFFICIALLY as Biden has made them the lead investigators. I have not seen anything by Greenwald reacting to this but I doubt he would find them best placed to pursue the scientific questions. At any rate, what you cite does not support your claim that Greenwald is now soft on the IC and is happy to use them when they support his views. This is a vast overinterpretation of that tweet. It is clear you dislike Greenwald. But it is precisely for this reason that when you make an accusation it should be solidly based. Do you have more than this tweet?
Last point: Greenwald can be wrong that this lab leak thesis is not politically driven and nonetheless relying on evidence that the hypothesis is legit based on non IC material. These are not incompatible positions. Do you think they are?
Where else would that idea come from besides the intel community? It's not like private citizens can pull down that kind of info.
GG is the guy who tried to tell you Barr wasn't misrepresenting the Mueller report. That he is *extremely* selective about when and where he tells you to "not trust the government" isn't really controversial. It's his MO.
I think your read on why Yglesias and others have been posting about the lab leak theory is misguided. It's not out of a sense of contrarianism, nor is it a culture war proxy. Rather it's because the meta conversation about the hypothesis--which featured a year of left-of-center types making strong claims about it being a conspiracy theory--evinces an unhealthy feature of left discourse.
Trumpers conflate lab leak with germ warfare and that led to some laziness, but the issue itself wasn't ignored.
June 2020
https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-shouldnt-rule-out-lab-source-coronavirus-new-study-says-1504656
December 2020
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4068627
Jan 2021
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html
https://www.wired.com/story/if-covid-19-did-start-with-a-lab-leak-would-we-ever-know/
'...which featured a year of left-of-center types making strong claims about it being a conspiracy theory...'
I agree with much of what you said, but there was so much junk science being peddled by right-of-center types this past year--ivermectin! HCQ! etc.--that the lab leak hypothesis may have been swept into the same garbage bin. And it's possible that some on the left were alarmed that COVID-19 was being weaponized by the right to bash not only the Chinese govt. but also Asian-Americans.
Several writers at *Vox* and elsewhere have admitted that some of their early writings on the pandemic used faulty assumptions. That shows a healthy feature of left discourse--evidence-based policy making and a willingness to change one's mind.
Is Greenwald really worth the trouble of bashing any more?
I dont see how the quotes you provide show Greenwald was relying on IC info to conclude the lab leak theory is viable. The theory’s revival seems to have stemmed from a paper by Nicholas Wade in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. As you know, he was a NYT science reproter. The idea was discussed before Wade by many, but this seemed to lead to a major reconsideration with some virologists jumping in after to agree that the lab leak theory was possible in the sense of not being clearly proven false. Now, I agree with you, and contra Greenwald, that this is NOW being driven by concerns very loosely connected to science, and the IC is now OFFICIALLY as Biden has made them the lead investigators. I have not seen anything by Greenwald reacting to this but I doubt he would find them best placed to pursue the scientific questions. At any rate, what you cite does not support your claim that Greenwald is now soft on the IC and is happy to use them when they support his views. This is a vast overinterpretation of that tweet. It is clear you dislike Greenwald. But it is precisely for this reason that when you make an accusation it should be solidly based. Do you have more than this tweet?
Last point: Greenwald can be wrong that this lab leak thesis is not politically driven and nonetheless relying on evidence that the hypothesis is legit based on non IC material. These are not incompatible positions. Do you think they are?
Where else would that idea come from besides the intel community? It's not like private citizens can pull down that kind of info.
GG is the guy who tried to tell you Barr wasn't misrepresenting the Mueller report. That he is *extremely* selective about when and where he tells you to "not trust the government" isn't really controversial. It's his MO.
'....Spies love keeping secrets.....'
So do politicians and diplomats. Access to secret knowledge is power--power over those not in the know.
He's a libertarian moralist. Moralists are consistent only in their own imagination.