That was very good. But this seems off base: We still don't know much of anything about Snowden, about what he wants to do, or what those around him have done with or without his consent. It's way too early to call Snowden a fucking clown. That's the same mistake as canonizing him. Great read, though. Thanks!I’ve been close with heroes, two of whom I’ve just told you about; I’ve faced choices similar to Snowden’s, situations similar to Greenwald’s. Compared to Vasya and Limonov, Snowden is a fucking clown. I’m not allowed to think that or write that because I’m for his leaks and against prosecuting him, but I’m having a hard time censoring myself — for that fucking clown.
I think he shoe-horned that in a tad so he could go after Greenwald. Maybe that's not it exactly....more like he had no problem seeing Snowden in that light compared to a)His own past struggles and choices, and b) as a point of convenience for going after GG. I mean, he painted a very stark picture of what he was up against and the crazy choices he made, but he doesn't seem to be able to escape his personal experience to step back and ask if it makes sense for a whistle-blower to still retain a preservation instinct against an insurmountable foe. Is it fair to think he might want to live on in a state of non-perpetual hell? Sure. Is it fair to think that he did something heroic and that heroes are not required to self-immolate in order to purify their deeds? I think a reasonable argument can be made there. Is it fair to think that he is scared, and that people who do brave things can be scared while they do them? Yeah. That's why it was hard to tell if it was more of a literary takedown than a rebuke of our attention spans or an insightful history lesson. Extremely compelling writing though.
Mark Ames is often called "off base." There's another one I'm thinking of unlocking. Both parts come in at 10,000 words. They did, however, make me buy two books.