There are ascetics, like Henry James’s Miss Birdseye (from “The Bostonians”), “who knew less about her fellow creatures, if possible, after 50 years of humanitary zeal, than on the day she had gone into the field to testify against the iniquity of most arrangements.”
There are narcissists like Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks. These are self-canonized men who feel that, as saints, they are entitled to ignore the rules that constrain ordinary mortal...
Then there are political romantics, played in this evening’s performance by Edward Snowden, almost 31 years old, with the sweet, innocently conspiratorial worldview of a precocious teenager....
And Greenwald? In his mind, he is not a reformer but a ruthless revolutionary — Robespierre, or Trotsky. The ancien régime is corrupt through and through, and he is the man who will topple it....
May 22, 2014
"Reformers tend to be difficult people. But they come in different flavors."
Writes Michael Kinsley, reviewing Glenn Greenwald's book ("No Place to Hide").
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
"There are narcissists like Julian Assange,..."
That's the best example of a prominent narcissist he could think of? I won't mention any names, but the initials of a far better example are B.H O.
Robespierre and Trotsky?
So who are Napoleon and Stalin?
I've often wondered if certain people see themselves as characters in a story, or archetypes. It would certainly explains how some people commit some pretty extreme acts. Is this phenomenon a result of a narrative hyper-obsessed society that's more concerned about the next episode of Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad than talking to members of their extended family.
Robespierre and Trotsky
Robespierre? Ugh. That is one ugly flavor.
I don't recall that Trotsky murdered anyone, but he certainly helped set up a brutal police state that did. That's a nasty flavor, too.
Never thought I'd say this, but all power to Glen Greenwald.
That hurt.
Robespierre sounds pretty close. The Snowden treason has made us all unsafe, just as they want it.
Campy, BHO doesn't count because he's not a reformer.
What evidence does Kinsley offer--or have--to show Julian Assange is a narcissist?
If, Assange is, indeed, a narcissist, what makes this necessarily a bad thing to those of us who do not have to live with him, especially if his efforts are for the public good? Does Kinsley not also recognize the high incidence of narcissism among his colleagues and friends in the media and among those in high national office, narcissism that may hinder or harm the public good?
Why is there such a vicious streak that runs through Leftists? Look at the Reign of Terror, as well as the Counter-Revolution atrocities.
Maybe he shoudl read up on what eventually happened to Robespierre and Trotsky
The interesting hypothetical here is how would Michael Kinsley have reviewed Greenwald's book had all these revelations come out under an administration Kinsley doesn't favor.
Remember, the first two document dumps by Assange and wikileaks dealt with U.S. foreign policy during the Bush year, and there was far more of an effort being made to champion Julian as a defender of the public's right to know. It was only went the third document dump off Bradley Manning's stolen information hit, which covered the first year of the Obama Administration, that Assange lost the vast majority of his backers.
Greenwald's actually be the consistent one in all of this -- He was for releasing all of the U.S. secrets under Bush, he was all for the first two wikileaks releases, he was for the third release and he's been Edward Snowden's media go-between and main PR guy. It's others like Kinsely who found him or Assange to be kindred souls when they were goring Michael's preferred ox; they only changed their minds when they found out Greenwald wanted to release U.S. secrets whether or not the president had an 'R' or a 'D' next to his name.
difficult people tend to think that they're reformers, or at least try to justify their "difficulty" on that basis.
>>>>@David said: So who are Napoleon and Stalin?
Thomas Ellers and Rick Ellensburg.
gerry said...
Robespierre and Trotsky
Robespierre? Ugh. That is one ugly flavor.
I don't recall that Trotsky murdered anyone, but he certainly helped set up a brutal police state that did. That's a nasty flavor, too.
Such "reformers" have no trouble with "breaking a few eggs", even if it becomes a few thousand or several million. Ultimately, they often get consumed by their own reforms.
Robert Cook said...
What evidence does Kinsley offer--or have--to show Julian Assange is a narcissist?
If, Assange is, indeed, a narcissist, what makes this necessarily a bad thing to those of us who do not have to live with him, especially if his efforts are for the public good?
But are they for the public good or just for the good of those releasing the information? Who gets to decide? Manning's releases via Assange put a lot of people's lives in danger. Is Assage a narcisist or perhaps a nihilist? What precisely are his motivations for releasing stolen classified information?
"Come in different flavors?" Has Kinsley licked them all? What an odd metaphor.
"every piece of evidence he musters demonstrating that people agree with him undermines his own argument that 'the authorities' brook no dissent. No one is stopping people from criticizing the government or supporting Greenwald in any way.
Of course, if you support the Tea Party . . . .
Nonapod: No.
People viewing themselves as archetypes or Lead Characters in A Narrative is nothing new, nor is narrative's omnipresence; storytelling is as old as mankind, and no more omnipresent than it ever was (that is to say, it's always been everywhere).
"Talking to extended family" gets old real fast unless they're ... performing narrative acts.
"And Greenwald? In his mind, he is not a reformer but a ruthless revolutionary — Robespierre, or Trotsky. The ancien régime is corrupt through and through, and he is the man who will topple it...."
Yes, and with sock puppets, I've read.
Over the years I've come to respect, although I don't appreciate, Robert Cook.
You give identity.
Bukkake Tears sums up Demoratics well.
The boys and I, we couldn't see tears through the jizz,
aND WE GOTS US Some care via. Obama.
Again.
So you say you wNna Han g around ... But I won't let you bring me down. Oh oh yeah.
Robespierre: Ended up kneeling before one of his own quillotines.
Trotsky:. Icepick through the brain courtesy of Comrade Stalin.
Either one a fitting end for the treasonous little weasel. Whatever else Greenwald is doing he's objectively aiding the other side, to channel Orwell.
They improv rush the poverty-like or poverty-wise if you prefer.
They keep those impoverished there.
With all their might and G.K. Chesterton's adamicy.
I sometimes felt as if Bill were here guiding me.
I understand this is faith.
Whatever else Greenwald is doing he's objectively aiding the other side,
I blame beta rage.
To paraphrase what someone once said: "You either have it or you don't. You're either a fighter or you're not....The very people who say they want a fighter then want to say who puts on the gloves and what blows they rain. A fighter is not born or made to your particular specifications. Don't say that you want a fighter like [Snowden] or [Greenwald]--but not [Snowden] or [Greenwald]."
I'm like a diamond: I'm gonna shine.
Compare to everyone else in line .. I 'm like the whole damn dIamond mine....
The whole fucking diamond mine.
Diesel. Rubber. Logistics involving fuel. Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc..
I recall seeing a bunch of one-acts, one of which was "The Death OF Trotsky" in which he's running around with an ice axe in his head until he realizes he should be dead--in about 5 iterations of that.
The dog would have barked had she knocked.
You know the Dead are pro-life right?
What, your little bitch-cunt don't like reality?
Darling reality likes you to earn its pay.
Trotsky didn't murder anyone? Really?
Lenin asked Trotsky to be head of the USSR secret police, the equivalent of Himmler. Trotsky turned it down because he thought anti-smites would use it bash the USSR. The Red Army during the Russian Civil War murdered thousands if not millions.
My favorite reformer is Felix Dzerzhinsky
IS this the same Kinsley who wrote this when Bush was in office:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2006/01/give_me_liberty_or_let_me_think_about_it.html
Yes, Greenwald is the consistent one. He's consistently wrong. But at least he's not arguing out of both sides of his mouth. Unlike Kinsley.
Kinsley feels the Pentagon Papers case was decided wrongly. I assume his tune would be different under a Republican.
"But are they for the public good or just for the good of those releasing the information? Who gets to decide? Manning's releases via Assange put a lot of people's lives in danger."
This notion that Manning's releases "put...people's lives in danger" is what the government may assert--as it asserts this reflexively with any leak of classified information, as a blanket slander against the leakers and defense against its own behavior--but there has been no evidence put forth that anyone anywhere was endangered or met harm as a result of Manning's leaks.
"And Greenwald? In his mind, he is not a reformer but a ruthless revolutionary — Robespierre, or Trotsky. The ancien régime is corrupt through and through, and he is the man who will topple it...."
He is at least half correct.
"I've often wondered if certain people see themselves as characters in a story, or archetypes."
Don't adopt Benny Hill. The judges don't think it's nearly as funny off-camera.
Robert Cook said...
"But are they for the public good or just for the good of those releasing the information? Who gets to decide? Manning's releases via Assange put a lot of people's lives in danger."
This notion that Manning's releases "put...people's lives in danger" is what the government may assert--as it asserts this reflexively with any leak of classified information, as a blanket slander against the leakers and defense against its own behavior--but there has been no evidence put forth that anyone anywhere was endangered or met harm as a result of Manning's leaks.
I'm sure those Iraqis who cooperated with US forces and whose names were released in unredacted messages would disagree with that assessment. Don't get me wrong - the government frequently classifies things (illegally) to protect itself from embarrassment. However, not everything classified falls into that category. There are valid reasons why some things are and should be classified.
Who gets to decide? Assage comes across to me as a nihilist who wants to tear down everything without regard to the harm it might do.
Post a Comment