Options
Those Whom the God Would Destroy ...
· Tuesday, November 30, 2010
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
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Syndicated Radio Host Dr. Laura Schlessinger: "The Patriot is the most informative and witty publication on the Internet. I read every issue!" It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Mike Schuerger Sr
Are we so witless and gutless that we will no longer take out our enemies? Who is this WikiLeak's people and why are they still breating? Why do they have an office, and not a smoking hole? Is no one willing to admit the value and danger of information in this supposed "Information Age?" Why ae we tolerating those "who give aid and confort to our enemies in time of war?"
As for the NY Times, I thought the publication of the Pentegon Papers was sufficient to shut them down - at least that long ago. Treason is still illegal, isn't it? Just because the "bad actor" is a corporation, that should not change the basic fact of the crime. It merely disperses responsibility and thus enlarges the number of arrests to be made.
Posted November 30, 2010 at 3:44:41 AM
Mike Schuerger Sr
Also, now that I already posted, don't we have some cybergeeks in the NSA or DIA or some such agency who can toast those people's stuff? We must have some capable hackers somewhere. A cyber version of a SEAL Team visit would at least eliminate whatever data they have stolen. Perhaps our people are keeping busy trying to find and plug the leaks they are using and no one has thought to regain security by dumping their data for them before it can be disseminated.
Perhaps the real reason is the Administration does not mind the distraction. Distraction does seem to be one of their stategies for dealing with us peons.
Posted November 30, 2010 at 3:54:59 AM
Jimmy D
"Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. We may live to find out whether it's true."
We are finding out. And it is true.
Who is left to point the apt finger at treason in a country that has murdered 50 million of it's innocent unborn. No one.
Betrayal? Of What?
Posted November 30, 2010 at 10:33:19 AM
Bill A
@ Jimmy D - I second your comment, we have indeed lost our bearings and madness does seem to be afoot in the land under the guise of 'freedom' of choice! Rather, it is viewed as 'Freedom' to do whatever we want, as the article states, without regard to the consequence to ourselves and others. God forgive and help us!
Posted November 30, 2010 at 11:36:29 AM
MSW
Once upon a time Americans who leaked this sort of information would have been tried for treason. Why isn't that done any more? The world's gone crazy!
Posted November 30, 2010 at 12:44:47 PM
David
Nothing is done because Julian Assange is one of us. He has yet to be indicted for anything. Almost as if the government wanted the data dump. Strange is it not?
Posted November 30, 2010 at 1:27:28 PM
J Henry Jr
Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and the nitwits of North Korea have something in common with Darth Sidious, er George Soros and Osama, they are all cheering Julian Assange. Why is the silence in D.C. so deafening? Could the lefties in the White House be snickering behind closed doors? A friend went through the wikileaks site and noticed something very interesting. There is a specific lack of Clinton era documents that have been leaked. What's up with THAT and why hasn't THAT been reported yet?
Posted November 30, 2010 at 4:50:36 PM
Pamela Heckel
The first set of leaks confirmed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - vindicating President Bush. This next set provides justification for the sale of all those fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. On the DR Show today the guests were all talking about military options for the US to take out Iran's nukes. Since the Arabs in the region hate Iran, I suggest that THEY handle this themselves. Our troops have bleed enough for the King.
Posted November 30, 2010 at 9:02:49 PM
Mary Ann Ludwig
The quote is: Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make proud. Not "mad". Even more applicable. Personally, I think it is despicable to blast these privileged communications all over the internet. Whether or not you think honesty is the best policy, these were sent confidentially with the expectation of remaining private forever. It's a little like whispering, "Boy is Grandma's butt huge" at a family reunion and then seeing it on the evening news later that night. How necessary what that really?
Posted November 30, 2010 at 9:43:14 PM
Gordon DeSpain
The very few Wikileaks I've read, so far, feature the "Great Lady" Klington having a pyrrhic moment on the altar she's built to worship herself. There are things one might like to say about someone that are best left unwritten, especially in an electronic medium that is so easily tapped.
Wellsprings of knowledge should ne'er be left to become gushing Geysers of ignorance and malice.
Posted December 1, 2010 at 12:27:05 AM
Ron
If Wikileaks really wants to leak something important, let's start with Obama's college records, health records, and his real birth certificate. Then we can have the impostor removed from office immediately.
Posted December 1, 2010 at 1:18:47 PM
Flash
The only thing the NY Times is concerned about is selling newspapers.
Posted December 1, 2010 at 3:56:25 PM
karl anglin
Espionage, for the most part, involves
finding a person who knows something or
has something that you can induce them
secretly to give to you. That almost
always involves a betrayal of trust.
---Aldrich Ames
Posted December 1, 2010 at 4:54:46 PM