Note to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post: How Badly Do You Wanna Fuck Edward Snowden?

Note to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post: How Badly Do You Wanna Fuck Edward Snowden?:
Here's one of those messed-up things that seems to apply only to Democrats or people on the left: if you want to try to change the world and if you believe that you in particular can help with the changing, you are called "messianic," as in "Motherfucker has a messiah complex," as in, "Who do you think you are? Jesus?" Ted Kennedy? Messiah. Bill Clinton? Messianic. Barack Obama? Well, he's either a messianic madman or the antichrist - it's hard to keep up. Seriously, Jesus Christ hisself could return to earth and George Will would call him out for acting all messianic and shit.

Now, lookie here. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who is one of the most Washington Postest columnists ever in that "Oh, see how evenhanded I am" way, has declared that NSA leaker Edward Snowden has a "messianic sense of self-importance." Marcus practically breaks her Thesaurus app by saying that the "insufferable" Snowden is also "smug, self-righteous, egotistical, disingenuous, megalomaniacal, overwrought."

And why is Snowden such a smug sucker of ass, according to Marcus? Because he's proud that he revealed the extent of the NSA spy program. You know, that thing that he risked his life and gave up his home to do? Marcus even evokes Orwell, saying that the man who wrote 1984 "would have told Snowden to chill." But then offers a paragraph that would have made Big Brother give her extra rations: "In the government’s massive database is information about who I called and who they called in turn. Perhaps the government shouldn’t have it; surely, there should be more controls over when they can search it. But my metadata almost certainly hasn’t been scrutinized; even if it has, the content of the calls remains off-limits."

Ah, dear, sweet, credulous Ms. Marcus. Do you not understand that it's that phrase, "almost certainly," that ought to make us all queasy because we never, never know? And we would have never known that we are being creeped by spooks sitting at desks had it not been for the actions that Snowden is glad he took.

But the other point, and one that ought not need to be made repeatedly, is that, at this juncture, Snowden is beside the point. If you give a shit about things like oversight and debates about the constitutionality of even the most secret operations (which are the ones that ought to be scrutinized even more closely), what does it matter if Snowden was a hacker with a conscience who hoped to cause a long-delayed debate on what our brave, new wired and wireless frontiers of communication mean or if he's a tiny-dicked geek loser who wanted to act like a tough guy? Who the fuck cares? (And, yeah, he should be allowed back in the United States.)

How fucking blind do you have to be to ask, as Marcus does, "[I]f Snowden is such a believer in the Constitution, why didn’t he stick around to test the system the Constitution created and deal with the consequences of his actions?" Marcus must know about Chelsea Manning. She must know about the boner the Justice Department has for any leakers.

So the only conclusion the Rude Pundit can reach is that Ruth Marcus is harboring a secret lust for Edward Snowden. When she says she hasn't had her "metadata" "scrutinized," almost surely that is a plea for Snowden to go down on her and get her to tell the secrets that can only be revealed with a thumb drive tenderly inserted in her asshole. She wants to say, "Oh, god," and mean Snowden.

If that's not what Marcus's subtext is, then her column is just a waste of everyone's fucking time.