It has been nearly a month since Edward Snowden woke us from our pleasant dream that the Fourth Amendment was still a thing, yet amazingly, the NSA's legal-sure-why-not data suck-and-swallow is still a major story. Yr Wonkette loves the taste of crow, so we are fine admitting we were slightly off-base about Snowden being an
It would be better to say, regarding (b) above, that that is an assumption that cannot be known to be true. As far as GregComlish's reply to bibliotequetress goes, that is not as strong as "false", but still pretty strong.
Steverino, I have great respect for your opinions, and generally I agree with this one. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I wouldn't use the term "narcissism", but I do believe that Snowden's motivations were a mix of genuine concern about domestic intelligence-gathering, and a personal desire to be a hero. I completely agree with your point (1). Snowden's risk evaluation was way the fuck off. Most of the people who would tend to support the leak are also supporters of the Administration, which is terminally anti-leak. I suppose the whole being-a-libertarian thing may have thrown him off.
As for your point (2), it may indicate that Snowden is, in personal relationships, an asshole. Or it may indicate that he was trying to maintain an air of normal life. In either case, <i>not</i> giving his GF any advance notice was the right thing to do, as it has apparently freed her from any retributive investigation.
On point (3), I think your analogy is faulty. Feit was able to maintain his anonymity because (a) he was much more highly placed; (b) he was in DC when the WaPo was still a newspaper, so his contacts were in person and very hard to trace; (c) his revelations regarded illegal (not just secret) actions by the Administration, so there was never a heavy-duty track-down-Deep-Throat investigation, as that would have been an implicit admission of guilt (also, lots of people really hated Nixon).
Whatever Snowden&#039;s original intentions were (and they may have been to jump in the spotlight ASAP), once Greenwald started pimping the stuff, I assume Ed realized that he was only a couple of days away from discovery and decided to get on with it. I don&#039;t see that as a matter of &quot;narcissism&quot; so much as a matter of inevitability. Maintaining anonymity is increasingly difficult. When was the last anonymous-for-at-least-two-years leak? I certainly don&#039;t know.
Great. Another whole post and comment thread about how we feel about Snowden. I left a drunken comment back a few days ago outlining why I think that&#039;s kind of a waste of time.
Upon further reflection, it did occur to me that this continuing coverage of Snowden is, in some ways, similar to Wonket&#039;s continuing coverage of the foibles of 1L, $arah, pRick, or the cabal of RWNJ pundits. I guess my problem with Snowden coverage is that most of the installments don&#039;t involve anything that is inherently comedic. I mean, both Snowden and Greenwald speak in complete, comprehensible, English sentences (in Greenwald&#039;s case, <i>lots</i> of complete sentences). One can perhaps get some entertainment value out of hyperbole, but there is no serious dispute about, or much humor in, the underlying facts being leaked.
Now, there was some snark material in Ed&#039;s original flight to that bastion of civil rights and information transparency, the PRC. And in the idea that pretty much the only places he can possibly avoid extradition are relatively repressive autocracies. And, the journamalist flight to Cuba was pretty funny. But as an ongoing story, this has gotten pretty bland.
My own feelings about Snowden, as a person, are &quot;meh&quot;. FWIW (which is nothing), I believe that his motivation was more-or-less equal parts &quot;good intentions&quot; and &quot;wannabe hero&quot;. I can remember being young and idealistic, and while I do not share Ed&#039;s Paulite world-view, I do believe that he may well have thought it worth some risk to expose the reality of the NSA&#039;s domestic information-gathering.
(As an aside to the &quot;Jeez, we already knew that&quot; folks: (1) No we didn&#039;t. We may well have <i>suspected</i> it, but we did not &quot;know&quot; about it; (2) &quot;We&quot; may have suspected it, but very many of our fellow citizens did not).
I also think Ed expected to be a hero; that there would be a groundswell of popular support, possibly allowing him to escape criminal sanctions. This expectation was a big mistake. He may have been thinking Watergate, or the Pentagon Papers, or even Three Days of the Condor; but what he got wrong was that back in the day there was at least a very large minority of folks that both hated the Vietnam War, and hated the Administration. In the present instance, there isn&#039;t such an alignment. Many of the people who are most offended by the revelation of domestic intelligence-gathering are, nevertheless, generally supportive of the Administration (cf., Wonkete commenters). Many of those who hate Obama are nevertheless generally supportive of (or at least tolerate) the domestic spying.
Hence, no groundswell of support. I suspect this may have come as a shock.
Anyhow, I&#039;ve now written another long comment on a topic I should ignore. My only excuse is that it&#039;s too hot to work outside for very long. I&#039;ll try not to do it again unless something amusing comes up.
That&#039;s a little unfair to Kerry. His big mistake was not responding more immediately and aggressively to the Swiftboat Assholes, but I can sort of understand. That was the first time in my lifetime (and my vague memory of Presidential elections goes back to Ike&#039;s second) that any candidate who had served in the military was attacked on his service record. I don&#039;t think he believed it could be serious. There was no precedent.
He demolished Dubya in the debates, and ultimately the motherfuckers stole Ohio. I know there is a school of thought that says he should have challenged, but it was the same SCOTUS that had handed the 2000 selection to Bush, so I&#039;m unsure how useful that would have been.
Of course we knew. Why does that make what he did any less worth doing? Not to mention dangerous and courageous?
The facts that are now openly acknowledged put Congress and the WH on the spot. I couldn&#039;t have done that. But more to the point: I didn&#039;t try.
Let me direct you to a) The part of my comment where I mention being happy that this conversation has been sparked -and- b) The fact that this whole article is pretty much summed up &quot;How we feel about Special Ed&quot;, not &quot;How we feel about the modern surveillance state&quot;.
I hear that lightening up is all the rage these days. Just ask Wendy Davis and her hair...
I think Mr. Snowden acted and continues to act in odd and poorly thought out ways. I think it is a good thing that his actions have sparked this conversation, but really, the guy just strikes me as a self-aggrandizing douchebag?
And, Also: I am just going to start calling him Special Ed now.
It would be better to say, regarding (b) above, that that is an assumption that cannot be known to be true. As far as GregComlish&#039;s reply to bibliotequetress goes, that is not as strong as &quot;false&quot;, but still pretty strong.
Steverino, I have great respect for your opinions, and generally I agree with this one. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I wouldn&#039;t use the term &quot;narcissism&quot;, but I do believe that Snowden&#039;s motivations were a mix of genuine concern about domestic intelligence-gathering, and a personal desire to be a hero. I completely agree with your point (1). Snowden&#039;s risk evaluation was way the fuck off. Most of the people who would tend to support the leak are also supporters of the Administration, which is terminally anti-leak. I suppose the whole being-a-libertarian thing may have thrown him off.
As for your point (2), it may indicate that Snowden is, in personal relationships, an asshole. Or it may indicate that he was trying to maintain an air of normal life. In either case, <i>not</i> giving his GF any advance notice was the right thing to do, as it has apparently freed her from any retributive investigation.
On point (3), I think your analogy is faulty. Feit was able to maintain his anonymity because (a) he was much more highly placed; (b) he was in DC when the WaPo was still a newspaper, so his contacts were in person and very hard to trace; (c) his revelations regarded illegal (not just secret) actions by the Administration, so there was never a heavy-duty track-down-Deep-Throat investigation, as that would have been an implicit admission of guilt (also, lots of people really hated Nixon).
Whatever Snowden&#039;s original intentions were (and they may have been to jump in the spotlight ASAP), once Greenwald started pimping the stuff, I assume Ed realized that he was only a couple of days away from discovery and decided to get on with it. I don&#039;t see that as a matter of &quot;narcissism&quot; so much as a matter of inevitability. Maintaining anonymity is increasingly difficult. When was the last anonymous-for-at-least-two-years leak? I certainly don&#039;t know.
Great. Another whole post and comment thread about how we feel about Snowden. I left a drunken comment back a few days ago outlining why I think that&#039;s kind of a waste of time.
Upon further reflection, it did occur to me that this continuing coverage of Snowden is, in some ways, similar to Wonket&#039;s continuing coverage of the foibles of 1L, $arah, pRick, or the cabal of RWNJ pundits. I guess my problem with Snowden coverage is that most of the installments don&#039;t involve anything that is inherently comedic. I mean, both Snowden and Greenwald speak in complete, comprehensible, English sentences (in Greenwald&#039;s case, <i>lots</i> of complete sentences). One can perhaps get some entertainment value out of hyperbole, but there is no serious dispute about, or much humor in, the underlying facts being leaked.
Now, there was some snark material in Ed&#039;s original flight to that bastion of civil rights and information transparency, the PRC. And in the idea that pretty much the only places he can possibly avoid extradition are relatively repressive autocracies. And, the journamalist flight to Cuba was pretty funny. But as an ongoing story, this has gotten pretty bland.
My own feelings about Snowden, as a person, are &quot;meh&quot;. FWIW (which is nothing), I believe that his motivation was more-or-less equal parts &quot;good intentions&quot; and &quot;wannabe hero&quot;. I can remember being young and idealistic, and while I do not share Ed&#039;s Paulite world-view, I do believe that he may well have thought it worth some risk to expose the reality of the NSA&#039;s domestic information-gathering.
(As an aside to the &quot;Jeez, we already knew that&quot; folks: (1) No we didn&#039;t. We may well have <i>suspected</i> it, but we did not &quot;know&quot; about it; (2) &quot;We&quot; may have suspected it, but very many of our fellow citizens did not).
I also think Ed expected to be a hero; that there would be a groundswell of popular support, possibly allowing him to escape criminal sanctions. This expectation was a big mistake. He may have been thinking Watergate, or the Pentagon Papers, or even Three Days of the Condor; but what he got wrong was that back in the day there was at least a very large minority of folks that both hated the Vietnam War, and hated the Administration. In the present instance, there isn&#039;t such an alignment. Many of the people who are most offended by the revelation of domestic intelligence-gathering are, nevertheless, generally supportive of the Administration (cf., Wonkete commenters). Many of those who hate Obama are nevertheless generally supportive of (or at least tolerate) the domestic spying.
Hence, no groundswell of support. I suspect this may have come as a shock.
Anyhow, I&#039;ve now written another long comment on a topic I should ignore. My only excuse is that it&#039;s too hot to work outside for very long. I&#039;ll try not to do it again unless something amusing comes up.
here&#039;s the thing NO ONE is talking about:
does he have a hotel room or is he freshening up in the the Chili&#039;s Too bathroom in Terminal 2?
That&#039;s a little unfair to Kerry. His big mistake was not responding more immediately and aggressively to the Swiftboat Assholes, but I can sort of understand. That was the first time in my lifetime (and my vague memory of Presidential elections goes back to Ike&#039;s second) that any candidate who had served in the military was attacked on his service record. I don&#039;t think he believed it could be serious. There was no precedent.
He demolished Dubya in the debates, and ultimately the motherfuckers stole Ohio. I know there is a school of thought that says he should have challenged, but it was the same SCOTUS that had handed the 2000 selection to Bush, so I&#039;m unsure how useful that would have been.
and &#039;die hard&#039; #5.
russia is the place to go when your franchise is running on fumes.
Think of it as a garage sale. Just because I am not using it doesn&#039;t mean someone else won&#039;t...
<i>How You Should Feel About Edward Snowden</i>
is &#039;bored out of my mind&#039; an option for the shallow wonketteers?
fortunately we have &#039;coup in egypt, the sequel&#039; to look forward to.
summer blockbusters always prove a rewarding distraction.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watc..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACDOBjPHqb8">http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Of course we knew. Why does that make what he did any less worth doing? Not to mention dangerous and courageous?
The facts that are now openly acknowledged put Congress and the WH on the spot. I couldn&#039;t have done that. But more to the point: I didn&#039;t try.
Let me direct you to a) The part of my comment where I mention being happy that this conversation has been sparked -and- b) The fact that this whole article is pretty much summed up &quot;How we feel about Special Ed&quot;, not &quot;How we feel about the modern surveillance state&quot;.
I hear that lightening up is all the rage these days. Just ask Wendy Davis and her hair...
He&#039;s a poboy, long ways from home.
Which option do I choose for:
I think Mr. Snowden acted and continues to act in odd and poorly thought out ways. I think it is a good thing that his actions have sparked this conversation, but really, the guy just strikes me as a self-aggrandizing douchebag?
And, Also: I am just going to start calling him Special Ed now.
You can have some of mine.
Do you want Joy, Silly, Happy, Mirth, Playful, Love, or Serenity?
I have oodles of each, and I like to share.
Hanker for a hunk a&#039;?