Profile In Cowardice Award (May 12, 2014)

. . .

K          “Brooksley Born and Sheila Bair courageously challenged the kleptocracy in America.  The Committee did not delay too long waiting to gauge their hipness or political correctness.  For good measure, they also awarded themselves the award in 2009.  Yet the award for 2014 is devoid of . . . courage.”

J          “And integrity and vision.  The Committee went craven this year and should receive a special Profile in Cravenness Award.  There is not a scintilla of doubt that Edward Snowden should have won hands down for standing up courageously this past year.”

K          “The Profile in Courage Award suffers from the same myopia as the awards for most Rhodes, some Pulitzers and the Nobel in E-con-omics.  The pool is constricted and confined at the outset to a small number recipients who can be counted on not to do or say anything really imaginative, creative or, with an award ostensibly celebrating courage, . . . courageous.”

J          “Failing to acknowledge true talent is a tremendous lost opportunity and only heightens cynicism.  Society is giving the wrong signals.  Only those connected need apply.”

K          “Those in power candidly admitted that Snowden did not go to the right schools or belong to the right clubs.  Those who make the decisions did not aspire to play squash or go yachting with him.”

. . .

J          “Those who criticize him for departing the United States fail to understand how much courage it took to take a stand in the face of the venal and vindictive federal criminal justice system in America.”

K          “What if the United States gave him asylum from the United States in the United States?  Strength in response to courage.  That will never happen in a nation debilitated by fear and motivated by hatred.”

J          “No matter how things stay the same, they stay the same.”

. . .

[See the article on the impact of political ideology on First Amendment decisions at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/us/politics/in-justices-votes-free-speech-often-means-speech-i-agree-with.html and the commentary at The Supreme Court On Drugs (June 25, 2007) (“The Court’s new First Amendment test is two-fold: 1) who is making the expression and 2) what is being expressed. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.”)]

[See the commentary on courage and truth at On Courage and Truth (March 17, 2008).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Pardon Edward Snowden

Free James Risen

Award James Hansen

Pusillanimity is bad form

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: