"It's a Serious Question"

Oct 29, 2010

By Ezra.

That's how Jonah Goldberg describes his new article calling for the assassination of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. So, before we get into how stupid Jonah Goldberg is, and how ridiculous most of what he writes is (and how awesome that National Review for Christmas pop up ad is) so first I'll give a serious answer – because they are smarter than you, and know it would do no good. Oh, and perhaps because it is also illegal and morally reprehensible, but probably less that.

Do we really live in a world where columnists can hope someone is killed by CIA agents? Someone who is not Osama Bin Laden? Someone who is (sort of) a member of the media, whose job it is to report on the mistakes, tragedies and incompetence of our occupation of Iraq? I'm guessing Jonah's not a big fan of Daniel Ellsburg either, right? Isn't calling for people's deaths the sort of thing Goldberg repudiates in our enemies (see Rushdie, Salman)

Seriously, rhetoric like this is good for nothing. In fact, I find it disgusting. Always have. No one should celebrate or cheer for the death of another human being, no matter what they have done. Where's the outrage towards Goldberg? Heck, a New Hampshire legislator had to resign when he talked about a "Dead Palin" He wasn't even actively advocating for her death.

So, why shouldn't Jonah Goldberg be forced to resign? I can dream, can't I? It's not like I'm calling for his assassination, right?

Last 5 posts by Ezra

Yogi Berra for Governor - December 7th, 2010
BGGCon 2010 - Day 0 - December 6th, 2010
Your Friday Afternoon is Happy to See the Name World B. Free - December 3rd, 2010
Boardgamegeek Con - Year 2 - November 15th, 2010
The Games We Played: Alexander Hamilton - AntiFederalist - November 12th, 2010

20 Comments

Jonah Goldberg, Julian Assange, National Review, Wikileaks

19 Comments

Ken • Oct 29, 2010 @11:12 am

I think Jonah Goldberg is generally unserious. But I think this is mostly satirical, or at least satirical as that word is used by the modern totalitarian Right (to whom satire means "state your position, but just punch it up a bit").

I read it as a comment on how the culture suggests the CIA is kill-happy, and also a belittling comment about people who have recently opposed the government having the right to kill whomever they want, but not an actual explicit call for assassination.

I also read it as a bit of banal rope-a-dope, calculated to draw exactly this sort of reaction, which he can then follow up with a mastubatory "look how dumb and humorless the liberals are. This is central to my point."
Ezra • Oct 29, 2010 @11:24 am

Yeah, I'm aware of Goldberg's supposedly Swiftian streak, but I just don't see it here. His last paragraph doesn't make me think of satire though.
Al • Oct 29, 2010 @11:25 am

I'm confused. So far it looks like the Pentagon's response to Wikileaks is actually pretty smart. What is it that he'd like to see the Pentagon doing?
Ezra • Oct 29, 2010 @11:27 am

Oh, and I do have a long history of being humorless about the whole wishing someone else was dead thing (going all the way back to OO thread's where someone was cheering Charlton Heston's descent into Alzheimer's.)
Dave (ND) • Oct 29, 2010 @11:37 am

Yeah. I got it as more of the if conspiracy theorists are right, then he would be dead.

It doesn't seem, to me, that he's actually calling for an assassination.
Charles • Oct 29, 2010 @11:45 am

Let me start by saying what a sad shitbag I think Jonah Goldberg is before I say that I don't think he calls for Assange's assassination. He explicitly calls for the government to "try to stop him" in direct contrast to killing him, and the only reasonable way to read that is "arrest him."
Patrick • Oct 29, 2010 @12:02 pm

"Why isn't Julian Assange dead?" is a pretty serious tell, Charles. Plus the whole, "I know it's against the law, but…" bit.

It isn't satire because it's not true. It isn't satire because it isn't funny.
Ken • Oct 29, 2010 @12:05 pm

As predicted.
SPQR • Oct 29, 2010 @1:34 pm

Ezra, with respect I think your reaction is to miss the point. As Ken suggests.
Ezra • Oct 29, 2010 @2:09 pm

I think my question is what was Goldberg's point? See, in pretending to take him seriously I fooled you all into thinking that I was against assassination. What a twist!

See, anyone can play this game poorly. What was Goldberg trying to do? Even in his gotcha follow up, he doesn't so much point out the hypocrisy of others as he does a little too loudly say "I didn't say that, you said I said that."
Charles • Oct 29, 2010 @2:10 pm

I don't buy it, Patrick. The column is primarily an attack on the black-helicopter nuts on the left who think the CIA is a 24/7 dissent-silencing machine who, if the lefties were right, would have killed Assange long ago and secondarily an attack on Obama for not considering Assange the biggest threat to the United States since Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center.

He didn't request or hint that Assange should be killed. Not that he'd mind if, say, the top step at his hiding place came loose…
Patrick • Oct 29, 2010 @3:04 pm

Well he can only say so much Charles. National Review has lawyers too.

We agree that he's a toilet licker at least. Buckley would have kept this between himself and James Jesus Angleton.
Mike • Oct 29, 2010 @5:23 pm

Jonah Goldberg is passive-aggressive. That's a far worse offense than calling for someone's assignation.
bw • Oct 29, 2010 @7:45 pm

I believed Ezra's interpretation, based on how Goldberg defended Obama's declaration of citizen assassination authority. Then I followed the link and read the column.

WOW. I think a lot of people here need to work on their reading comprehension, and stop putting words in the mouth of columnists they dislike.

The column doesn't advocate anything – it merely points out that IF the clandestine services were truly as many people fantasize, then Assange would be dead long ago. He's examining something that's occurred to a lot of people because, in most of the modern literature, movies, and TV, doing something like this means Bourne, Bond, or Bauer is going to be knocking on your door.
David • Oct 30, 2010 @11:50 am

Some people consider the CIA astonishly superpowerful.
Some people consider the CIA stultifyingly obtuse.
These people exists both on the right and on the left; Goldberg focuses on those inhabiting the left.
He points out that if those who over- or under-estimate the CIA were right (thus confirming conspiratorial fantasies of one sort or another), then Assange would be dead. From the fact that Assange lives, Goldberg infers that the antecedents are false: the CIA is neither a demigod nor an oaf.

So Ken, Dave, and bw have it right. And it's not hard to see Goldberg's point.

Ezra– what are you smoking?
Base of the Pillar • Oct 30, 2010 @12:21 pm

Agreed. I read Ezra's post and was about to agree with him. Then I read the article and I think he (and shamefully Mr. Irony himself, Patrick) missed it by a country mile. It's not the Ezra Ultimatum.
Mike • Oct 30, 2010 @2:05 pm

I think he (and shamefully Mr. Irony himself, Patrick) missed it by a country mile

You were conned by a passive-aggressive, and probably don't realize what a slave you have become to euphemism. Read "Politics in the English Language" – twice – and call me in the morning.

A passive-aggressive always has cover. I'm not saying you're a dumb fuck who lets people manipulate you with their passive-aggressive words, but I'm not saying you're not, either.

Jonah Goldberg said he wanted someone dead without saying he wanted someone dead. There are legitimate reasons to disguise one's desires. There is a federal law against inciting someone to commit murder, so one must be careful.

I doubt Jonah Goldberg's punk ass was thinking about the law. He was just being his passive-aggressive, bitchy self.

And you fell for it.
nitroglycol • Oct 30, 2010 @5:32 pm

I think Mike has got it right. This is far from the only example; remember those bumper stickers that say "Pray for Obama — Psalm 109:8"? Legally, they're on pretty safe ground, but I don't think they'd be sorry if someone decides to take them at face value.
bw • Nov 1, 2010 @10:05 am

Some people only see what they want to see.