Those Whom the God Would Destroy…
As life in the 21st century gets loopier and loopier, the truly deranged come out of the woodwork, passing themselves off as benefactors of mankind, candidates for sainthood, etc. Maybe—who knows—candidates for another Pulitzer Prize: something The New York Times hardly needs, but self-inflicted moral grandeur can do odd things to you.
The New York Times' official rationale for publishing "a cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years," is the public's supposed "right to know what is being done in their name" by their diplomats.
The cables being made public in serial fashion—not just in the Times but in several left-wing European publications—"tell the unvarnished story," the Times says, "of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations—and, in some cases, duplicity—of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid."
We the people, on the Times' showing, need to know. Everybody, it seems, needs to know The Truth. Let it all hang out. Let freedom ring and Satan take the hindmost. Blah, blah, blah.
I think many of us, if the real truth be told, have never heard such exalted bullcorn—such self-serving claptrap.
America's allegedly greatest newspaper, far from further entrenching the Right to Know, serves notice of just how daft we all must have gotten while no one was looking.
The Australian whose WikiLeaks website obtained and volunteered to share the secret documents is nutty as a fruitcake, not least in his anti-Americanism. The editors who are publishing the documents—including those at The New York Times—are likewise nutty.
Hillary Clinton bromidically suggests that spilling the beans on American opinions of foreign leaders, and on American concerns about Iran and nuclear weapons, won't destroy our foreign relationships. She could be right. She could be wrong. The real point is elsewhere. It takes the form of a question: What have we come to when morally disconnected folk inside and outside the great communication media of our day put on Olympian airs—as if human restraints had nothing to do with them. As if their instincts alone were sovereign; their understandings of What We All Need, whether we know it or not, enjoyed divine status. The editors of the Times know what's good for us. Just ask 'em.
The Times' daftness—its moral blindness to consequences—in some ways emblemizes the age. We don't have to live by common sense anymore. Rational behavior isn't required of supposedly civilized people. You can thumb your nose at antiquated notions of prudence and restraint and good will. What's all that as against the people's right to be told ... by YOU?
Whether or not foreign policy damage results from WikiLeaks' information dump, with The New York Times as partner, is only partly the point. The larger point—at least it seems so to me—is the larger disposition our era shows for plain, old-fashioned irrationality.
Don't worry about whether something you want to do might harm someone, possibly many people; just think about what YOU hope will come of it. You—wonderful you. Isn't that the modern spirit?
Civilized people aren't supposed to buy into this trumpery. Civilized people are supposed to look before they leap, most particularly when their arms are wrapped around other people's necks.
Yes, of course, WikiLeaks' stolen cables would have gotten out in Europe and elsewhere even had the editors of The New York Times scornfully refused to be used. Can't the editors nonetheless see? Sane people don't do irrational things, whether others do them or not. Rational people weigh consequences. It makes one wonder to whom the immediate future belongs—rational people or the likes of Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and the nitwits of North Korea.
A troubling piece of counsel comes to mind, from the formless past: Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. We may live to find out whether it's true.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
The NY Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, Washington Post, etc should be viewed as an information cartel which has egregiously violated the anti-trust laws and collude with big government & big business & big labor. All of these institutions need to be busted up and a clean sweep of all the personnel manning them should be made. New fresh blood should be hired. Perhaps a lottery should be considered and term limits of five years imposed upon on camera talent, behind camera staff, production and ownership. No foreign ownership should be allowed. Also, financial disclosure statements should be required every quarter on the various TV news & Radio shows so we, the public know who the news people are involved and their backers.
At least since 1968 we have had dozens of successful recent experiments that prove to a scientific certainty that our nations largest and most prestigiuos media outlets have the power to start and stop wars, or make and break Presidents.
As Mr. Murchison concludes, "A troubling piece of counsel comes to mind, from the formless past: Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. We may live to find out whether it’s true."
It is and we will.
I am neither here nor there.
Obviously, we are all going to live forever, else we wouldn't be worrying about all the lies and duplicity that government officials keep, that could harm us.
And obviously, we are all going to live forever, because if secrets are lives, we have certainly managed to become immortal by keeping secrets.
Either way, I still walk several miles everyday without fear of lightning striking me, or of terrorists or scheming government officials being empowered to do things to all of us. All the same, it's all just entertainment to pay some moment's attention and move on. Putin and Medvedev being Batman and Robin, ho ho ho.
"Obviously, we are all going to live forever, else we wouldn’t be worrying about all the lies and duplicity that government officials keep, that could harm us."
Prateek,
It is because I know to a degree of medical certainty that I will not live forever or even for another twenty years, that I could care less about the sacramentals of the NYT or Washington Post. As a child I thought as a child, so during my college days I spent more time in coffee shops pouring over the Grey Lady Times and blessing myself with their HOLY WRIT than I care to remember.
Once a mans love matures, however, he must attempt to put aside childish things like lying, cheating, and pretending -- or working full time for the father of such things. It was only a few years ago when Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby got caught force feeding that defenseless, NYT, reporter with a stomach tube full of public poison about WMD's in Iraq, large purchases of yellow cake uranium from Nigerians, and outing our own CIA agents who knew better.
Hmm, didn't the NYT refuse to publish the 'climategate' emails due to privacy concerns? Why the reversal?
In the absence of the names of persons harmed by the Wikileaks release of those diplomatic (?) documents and correspondence as well as the nature of the harms suffered, I'll withhold condemnation of Assange and his company. I'd also like to see the case for calling him anti-American--with specifics, including reliable references--or even "nutty". And would someone explain how he, an Australian, can be guilty of treason against the U.S.? And why does no one condemn threats of assassination and execution directed against him by the highly dubious likes of Palin and Huckabee?
As far as I've heard, all Wikileaks has done is confirm common knowledge about corruption in Afghanistan, the ignorance and vulgarity of the current crop of major-power "diplomats," the fraudulent basis of the war on terror, and other heretofore inadequately attested states of affairs that virtually everyone believes are real.
Actually, Wikileaks has a very interesting record, long before they started to take on American foreign policy as their target.
Consider for example Wikileaks' very interesting revelation that organizations set up their own fake opposition groups or even litigation groups meant to sue their organization. It's probably their clever way of ensnaring dissident members and hostile outside critics. Or their way of getting negative attention. Such was revealed from the Scientology leaks, which showed very convincingly that nearly every anti-Scientology website was started by the Church of Scientology itself; they were the ones who registered those domains.
They also revealed that Iceland is one of the most cronyist, dishonest First World nations out there, with its downright fraudulent ways of siphoning other people's money.
Ray, Mr Murchison didn't mention treason unless my three readings failed to see it. The charges of treason are generally directed at the soldier, Bradley Manning, who passed the files to Assange. (By the way, Ann Coulter writes about Manning being homosexual and the treason being due to some lover's quarrel or revenge for "don't ask, don't tell". I seldom notice Ann and don't know whether this is true or not; are there other confirmations?)
Also, as Mr Murchison states: the article isn't so much about the leaks as it is about the self-righteous arrogance of the NYT, et al.
"As far as I’ve heard, all Wikileaks has done is confirm common knowledge about corruption in Afghanistan, the ignorance and vulgarity of the current crop of major-power “diplomats,” the fraudulent basis of the war on terror, and other heretofore inadequately attested states of affairs that virtually everyone believes are real."
Well said, Mr.Olson. In a consumer based economy the mind and body must always be opened and readied for more consumption. In politics the cry is, "something must be done, this is something, so let's do ......; in media the senses have been dulled by decades of lies and indoctrination towards the wierd, innovative and eccentric, so hype must now be generated for further consumption, in religion bread and wine can no longer compare to peyote nuts and marijuana, or the old southern preacher, Jimmy Swaggart, to fruadulent gurus in California and New York. To paraphrase Hamlet,"consumption is all." Wiki-leaks is just another ordinary entre on the menue of globalism --- And one that some of us have tasted and known about for years.
"as Mr Murchison states: the article isn’t so much about the leaks as it is about the self-righteous arrogance of the NYT, et al."
Yes, this was my first impression after reading Mr. Murchison's article. He is too much of a gentleman to say "they (the NYT) have been doing the very same thing for years," but most of us do not live by Mr. Murchison's high standards of journalism and can, therefore, say what he undoubtedly knows but did not wish to mention explicitly. As the old saying goes, "it is hard to soar with Eagles when one is surrounded by Turkeys!
To Jim @ 8: Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought Mr. Murchison, whom I like and respect greatly, called Assange a traitor. I don't think that. But Mr.Murchison did say Assange was "nutty as a fruitcake, not least in his anti-Americanism" without evidence or explanation. I've seen nothing to indicate that Assange is anti-American. If he is, then in what sense is he so? I'm anti-American if the criterion is endorsement of my government's policy and actions in the Middle East. But I consider that policy and those actions damaging to my country, and I won't endorse them. Anti-Americanism should be made of sterner stuff.