 |
| Source: The Unapologetic Geek |
Every 6 months or so, the New York Times reminds us why patriotic Americans hate it so. Critics readily call this toilet paper of record what it is: Treasonous.
Trenchant Canadian thinker and moralist David Warren supplies the oh so apropos words…
“Does the state, under whose protection we live, have any claim on our loyalty, whatever? Do the men and women who have died, and generations that have made sacrifices for our very existence, have any moral claim upon us? Or are they simply disposable extensions of our own ego? (David Warren - Wikid )
It’s a brilliant question with only one obvious answer: Yes, of course we do!
We can criticize President Obama, the military or the TSA, but in the end, we still owe the president and the government our loyalty. I think the TSA is a poorly conceived organization, but if I ever found myself in possession of embarrassing but secret TSA information, there’s no way in hell I would release it to anyone.
It is craven stupidity to cooperate with forces who want to undermine your nation. The New York Times staff and their fellow travelers are the spoiled rotten teens who scream curses at mommy and daddy while driving off in the new Mercedes those hated parents just bought them.
Our government is the guardian of our classical liberal ideals. That it sometimes does not live up to them is no surprise. Anyway, there is no damning information in this latest tranche. We come out looking like the responsible adults, while our friendemies look craven, venal and downright stupid.
This is not whistleblowing
Whistleblowing is revealing a US Army plot to harvest the organs of innocent Afghanis. Exposing a George Bush-Dick Cheney plot to continue controlling the US and the world from a secret bunker deep under the city of Dallas would be whistleblowing. The revelation that Singapore's prime minister called North Korean dictator Kim Jong Ill "a flabby chap," is hardly earthshattering. Damned funny, but hardly worth all the fuss and bother.
We need the press to be the honest broker and the detective who ferrets out government and international agency wrongdoing. I want politicians and bureaucrats looking over their shoulders, and when they do wrong, I want it exposed. Problem is, The New York Times jumps all over a chance to embarrass the United States and reveal critical secrets, but it studiously ignored the global warming flim flammery revealed in the East Anglia e-mails because they were "stolen." A watchdog that plays favorites is no watchdog at all.
The WikiRapist is a stated enemy of the US and should be treated as such
In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and "Conspiracy as Governance." He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy.
His central plan is that leaks will restrict the flow of information among officials—"conspirators" in his view—making government less effective. Or, as Mr. Assange puts it, "We can marginalize a conspiracy's ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment. . . . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself." (Gordon Crovitz – Information Anarchist)
One step down from Assange’s acts of "look at me" hatred and the NY Times’ treason, is the giddy idiocy of people who call themselves loyal Americans cheering all this on.
If you believe diplomacy and international cooperation are vital means of avoiding war and aiding the oppressed, then you must agree that this smirking pseudo-intellectual prima donna has blood on his hands. His actions have chilled diplomatic candor. Assange is not just an enemy of the United States, he is an enemy of mankind.
8 comments:
Wikileaks is Change Obama cannot imagine, but we need to have global leadership based on transparency.
We NEED proper steering mechanism to survive the global society we created with technology. Transparency/involvement is needed. It's urgent, at this moment our society has an obsolete 200 years old steering mechanism. How can a few wise leaders understand these complex global issues pending ?
Would we have gone to Iraq over Weapons of mass destruction is we were part of the diplomatic cable discussion ?
Better of with more transparency ? Credit Crises / Cable gate shows governments are not so much in control of the global society. Wasn't it work of the press to tell us the truth ?
Can the government be specific what is so threatening, because NO ONE DIED by the cables released. People did die because the same amount of money did go to Foreign Affair as to public health care.
At least the cork out of the bottle. Fact is that secrets are harder to keep anno 2010. Shutting down is naive. Discuss it is the only option.. If democracy fails, the only solution is MORE democracy!. Fill the streets and discuss where the press fails.
@ Anon: "Discuss it is the only option."
And we'll now have less of it thanks to the WikiRapist, whose stated goal is just that. Go read his manifesto.
Silverfiddle, I have to disagree wqith you on one point and that is where you said: "....we still owe the president and the government our loyalty."
I may be wrong (and there are those who would say I am always wrong), but it is my belief that we owe our loyalty to our country and our government in so long as the government is not tyrannical. I also believe that we owe loyalty NOT to the man who is the president, but to the Office of the President. The man who holds the title of President might turn out to be a real schmuck who cares little for the country such as Obama. Such a man does not deserve our loyalty or respect.
Our disagreement is slight, Reverend. How do you respect the office but disrespect the man who holds it?
Also, while we still have the vote, the government still has my loyalty.
I have to side with the Reverend on this one, Silver: people cannot demand respect, but ideas, concepts, offices and institutions can. People come and go, these other abstract concepts are indefinite and endure.
While in the military, the UCMJ required me to respect the rank of those above me, in addition to following their commands and orders to a T without hesitation or question.
I was never compelled to respect the holder of the rank, however; that had to be earned. I served under many, many military leaders whom I utterly detested and had no respect for whatsoever because of a litany of character shortcomings, but I still respected their rank.
I cannot respect a hypocrite, a liar and a narcissist. Obama is all of these things, and I do not respect him. I still respect the office of the presidency, however.
OK, I'm going to quibble now.
Did you salute that officer you didn't respect? The you rendered him respect.
Yup, quibbling. I saluted the bars, not the guy.
If said hypothetical officer of whom I had just saluted was on my shit list, and asked me directly 'sergeant, do you respect me, or just my rank?', I would have answered him with 'I respect your rank, sir.'
If he persisted, and asked, 'but do you respect me?' My answer: 'no, sir.' And nobody could tell me this was insubordination.
That reminds me of the old story about the crusty NCO who was tired of the Captain he worked with busting his balls all the time.
The sergeant asked the captain if it would be insubordination to call him an a-hole.
"Of course it would, I'd bust you!" Yelled the captain.
"What if I just thought it?" asked the sergeant.
"I can't punish you for thinking," replied the captain.
"OK," replied the sergeant, "I think you're an a-hole!"
Post a Comment