Time Magazine Cover
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Ummm .... yes.
OK, since you declined to offer your opinion, I'll offer mine.
The United States, publicly and privately, has been rallying the world to block Iran's nuclear program. The leaked super sekrit cables show that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and everybody from Arabs to Israelis wants it to stop. Shocking stuff.
The leaked documents show that the so-called "Axis of Evil" (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) continues to be a major preoccupation of the United States. Again, shocking, just shocking.
Earlier super sekrit documents released by WikiLeaks included several thousand field reports from US troops fighting in Iraq. For the most part, those reports show American soldiers trying to do the right thing in a tough environment. No different than the televised military briefings. Shocking stuff in these sekrit documents.
On North Korea, the leaked U.S. documents show how little is known about the leadership of that closed country, or about its future plans, or about the state of its nuclear program. I'm glad we have those sekrit cables to tell us those shocking revelations.
So the private assessments of U.S. soldiers and diplomats are pretty much the same as their public statements. That's good news for everyone who believes in open government, and a disappointment for everyone who believes the United States has a secret agenda.
You know what the biggest surprise was from the thousands of documents containing the Pentagon-Papers-esqe super sekrit secrets? The fact that there were no surprises. No whistles blowing. Even Iran's nutjob of a leader said, "Nothing to see here, move along."
Oh, sure, there were some gossipy tid bits, but nobody was shocked (or cares) to hear a French president described as "mercurial" and "thin-skinned," or that some officials from the old Soviet bloc drink a lot of vodka, and dance badly, or that Muammar Gaddafi likes Flamenco dancing and doesn't like to sleep on the top floors of hotels.
The stated goals of WikiLeaks is to prevent corruption and lying by powerful governments and corporations, but the release of these cables doesn't do any of that. So why release them if they aren't even consistent with WikiLeaks' own stated goals? It's because Assange and WikiLeaks has unstated goals. Since no deliberate wrongdoing by government or military personnel has turned up in the material, WikiLeaks' goal appears to be nothing more than to inflict maximum embarrassment (and maximum publicity for himself).
The essential tool of State Department diplomacy is trust between American officials and their foreign counterparts. Unlike the Pentagon, which has military forces, or the Treasury Department, which has financial tools, the State Department functions mainly by winning the trust of foreign officials, sharing information, and persuading. Those discussions have to be confidential to be successful. Destroying confidentiality means destroying diplomacy.
Assange and the far left around the world and in America, and many others indeed, prefer to see disputes settles peacefully rather than militarily. But in order to do that you have to have effective diplomacy. World peace is a lot harder to achieve if the U.S. State Department is cut off at the knees. And that is exactly what this mass revelation of documents is doing.
The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans, they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, mostly non-democratic ones.
But Assange himself may be the most hypocritical of all. He demands transparency, but refuses to be transparent about anything. Assange leaked these documents not because they expose corruption and lying, but because it furthers his own cause and ego. There is nothing else other than his own cause and ego for anyone anywhere to gain from the release of what is essentially unimportant gossip between diplomats. He dumps stuff because he can, everything from stuff that really and truly should see the light of day, like chopper gunship video and a few other things, but leaking stuff like the rituals of Alpha Sigma Tau sorority girls doesn't even remotely come close to the lying and corruption of governments and corporations. When he leaked some Church of Scientology documents and the Church told him to remove them, he responded in fine hacker fashion with essentially, "Oh, yeah? Just for that, I'm gonna release a snotload more of them next week!" And he did. What an "Aristotle" (my new word for the 4-letter d-word that ends, appropriately enough, in "ick").
The problem is, he's a hacker who is playing a high stakes game of Spy versus Spy, and he thinks it's a game. But it's not. And he's gonna lose. And when he loses, we all lose, because secrecy will be at an all-time premium with our (and other) government, and the secrets will be even harder to get at. If he sticks with the state goals, exposing stuff that should be exposed, and leaves the gossip and unimportant stuff alone, he won't be as famous, but he'll be far more effective.
The United States, publicly and privately, has been rallying the world to block Iran's nuclear program. The leaked super sekrit cables show that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and everybody from Arabs to Israelis wants it to stop. Shocking stuff.
The leaked documents show that the so-called "Axis of Evil" (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) continues to be a major preoccupation of the United States. Again, shocking, just shocking.
Earlier super sekrit documents released by WikiLeaks included several thousand field reports from US troops fighting in Iraq. For the most part, those reports show American soldiers trying to do the right thing in a tough environment. No different than the televised military briefings. Shocking stuff in these sekrit documents.
On North Korea, the leaked U.S. documents show how little is known about the leadership of that closed country, or about its future plans, or about the state of its nuclear program. I'm glad we have those sekrit cables to tell us those shocking revelations.
So the private assessments of U.S. soldiers and diplomats are pretty much the same as their public statements. That's good news for everyone who believes in open government, and a disappointment for everyone who believes the United States has a secret agenda.
You know what the biggest surprise was from the thousands of documents containing the Pentagon-Papers-esqe super sekrit secrets? The fact that there were no surprises. No whistles blowing. Even Iran's nutjob of a leader said, "Nothing to see here, move along."
Oh, sure, there were some gossipy tid bits, but nobody was shocked (or cares) to hear a French president described as "mercurial" and "thin-skinned," or that some officials from the old Soviet bloc drink a lot of vodka, and dance badly, or that Muammar Gaddafi likes Flamenco dancing and doesn't like to sleep on the top floors of hotels.
The stated goals of WikiLeaks is to prevent corruption and lying by powerful governments and corporations, but the release of these cables doesn't do any of that. So why release them if they aren't even consistent with WikiLeaks' own stated goals? It's because Assange and WikiLeaks has unstated goals. Since no deliberate wrongdoing by government or military personnel has turned up in the material, WikiLeaks' goal appears to be nothing more than to inflict maximum embarrassment (and maximum publicity for himself).
The essential tool of State Department diplomacy is trust between American officials and their foreign counterparts. Unlike the Pentagon, which has military forces, or the Treasury Department, which has financial tools, the State Department functions mainly by winning the trust of foreign officials, sharing information, and persuading. Those discussions have to be confidential to be successful. Destroying confidentiality means destroying diplomacy.
Assange and the far left around the world and in America, and many others indeed, prefer to see disputes settles peacefully rather than militarily. But in order to do that you have to have effective diplomacy. World peace is a lot harder to achieve if the U.S. State Department is cut off at the knees. And that is exactly what this mass revelation of documents is doing.
The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans, they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, mostly non-democratic ones.
But Assange himself may be the most hypocritical of all. He demands transparency, but refuses to be transparent about anything. Assange leaked these documents not because they expose corruption and lying, but because it furthers his own cause and ego. There is nothing else other than his own cause and ego for anyone anywhere to gain from the release of what is essentially unimportant gossip between diplomats. He dumps stuff because he can, everything from stuff that really and truly should see the light of day, like chopper gunship video and a few other things, but leaking stuff like the rituals of Alpha Sigma Tau sorority girls doesn't even remotely come close to the lying and corruption of governments and corporations. When he leaked some Church of Scientology documents and the Church told him to remove them, he responded in fine hacker fashion with essentially, "Oh, yeah? Just for that, I'm gonna release a snotload more of them next week!" And he did. What an "Aristotle" (my new word for the 4-letter d-word that ends, appropriately enough, in "ick").
The problem is, he's a hacker who is playing a high stakes game of Spy versus Spy, and he thinks it's a game. But it's not. And he's gonna lose. And when he loses, we all lose, because secrecy will be at an all-time premium with our (and other) government, and the secrets will be even harder to get at. If he sticks with the state goals, exposing stuff that should be exposed, and leaves the gossip and unimportant stuff alone, he won't be as famous, but he'll be far more effective.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I rather figured you might
BTW, for the record, I didn't decline - I just simply answered your question when you asked if I had any idea of the purpose ....
Last edited:
I know.
Although the question as posed was literally a request for information about whether or not you had any idea on the subject, I had hoped that the conversational implicature would have been clear.
BTW, tie rod and wheel bearings are still on backorder for Monday. Good grief. I could have ordered them myself and gotten them here 3 days ago. I ordered Water Miser battery caps for Monday delivery, and UPS tracking shows them on-time for Tuesday delivery. Just shoot me.
Soooooo, I'm apparently taking it out on Mr Assange.
Although the question as posed was literally a request for information about whether or not you had any idea on the subject, I had hoped that the conversational implicature would have been clear.
BTW, tie rod and wheel bearings are still on backorder for Monday. Good grief. I could have ordered them myself and gotten them here 3 days ago. I ordered Water Miser battery caps for Monday delivery, and UPS tracking shows them on-time for Tuesday delivery. Just shoot me.
Soooooo, I'm apparently taking it out on Mr Assange.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It was ...
Doncha just hate when that happens ... pretty sad when a private individual has better/faster access to parts than a dealer who is supposed to be an official representative of the company making/selling the vehicle.
Well, I really hate to say it .... but you ain't missing anything
My guess: probably the least of his worries right at the moment.Soooooo, I'm apparently taking it out on Mr Assange.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well I find it ironic that TIME would even consider talking about this, let alone publish a single word about free speech.
The last time I looked, TIME is part of one of them horrid corporations which feeds off the people and they should not be throwing stones in a glass house.
HOW about this, seeing Bank of America is also a target, I would think that Time-Warner, GE and others would also be a target so lets see their interoffice memos, their reports and how they talk about spinning facts, making up lies and trying to fool the public with their crimes.
Isn't this the only fair thing to do?
Or will this undermine the journalistic ingenuity of those who think they are above the law?
I just had another thought, if Assange is so right, should he be hiding?
Maybe being in the public would show he has no fear to fight for his cause like so many others before him.
The last time I looked, TIME is part of one of them horrid corporations which feeds off the people and they should not be throwing stones in a glass house.
HOW about this, seeing Bank of America is also a target, I would think that Time-Warner, GE and others would also be a target so lets see their interoffice memos, their reports and how they talk about spinning facts, making up lies and trying to fool the public with their crimes.
Isn't this the only fair thing to do?
Or will this undermine the journalistic ingenuity of those who think they are above the law?
I just had another thought, if Assange is so right, should he be hiding?
Maybe being in the public would show he has no fear to fight for his cause like so many others before him.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
By all means: Let the chips fall where they may ....
So it would seem ....
Consider this:
If there is an organization or mechanism in place which causes transparency, would this then not be a motivation to knock off the crap and shenanigans, the unethical activity, and actually be honest and ethical in one's conduct and dealings ?
Evidently, our Founding Fathers, and more recently, the courts, seemed to think so ....
Indeed, it is considered by many, at this point to be a somewhat common wisdom.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant ....” - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
".... and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free ..." - John 8:32
I dunno about journalistic ingenuity, but it might prompt a little more journalistic integrity .....
As the terrapin so rightly pointed out: dead is still dead ....
You seem to be confusing some sort of delusional, self-righteous stupidity with actual courage ....
Being courageous doesn't necessarily require one to place a target on one's back .... and then walk directly in front of where those who oppose you are standing, all while inviting them to take a point-blank shot .....
As to whether Assange is in fear, I truly have no idea .... he would be a fool to at least not be extremely concerned about his own personal safety ...... considering the track record of not only the US, but other governments as well, to engage in all manner of perfidity - such as illegal detention, torture, extra-judicial assassinations and the like ....
Last edited:
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Hmmm ..... well .... apparently, it would seem that some do ..... otherwise they must have an extremely large staff ....
TIME is a global multimedia brand that includes TIME magazine, the world's largest weekly newsmagazine, with a domestic audience of 20 million and a global audience of 25 million; four worldwide editions of TIME magazine;
Source:
Time
Never knew there were that many Dentist offices.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOL .....
Yeah, that was kinda what I was thinking ... about the only time (excuse the pun
) I see that rag is when I go to the chiropractor ....Very astute observation/comment on your part JJ
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
LOL .....
Yeah, that was kinda what I was thinking ... about the only time (excuse the pun
Very astute observation/comment on your part JJ
I heard that on TV the other day when they were talking about people magazine. Thought it might fit.
That certainly fits. That is the only place I remember seeing a People magazine except at the grocery checkout. Guess my dentist cancelled his Time subscription.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Yes I would agree but that mechanism or organization that we have already isn't what we should have today. The claim made is that the press, a single entity, is that organization. But isn't it full of the same nepotism and cronyism that is entrenched in our government. It is in what many consider the protectors of any free society but itself falls short of honesty and ethics on a lot of levels let alone it lacks loyalty to the system that allows it to even exist. Without ethics and loyalty of any sort, we can see what happens when money and agendas supersede what is right or what is wrong when ethics comes into question.
Point in case is Dan Rather, who not once but a few times presented false information to the public. This last time was serious, he should have been fired right on the spot but CBS and the many in the "profession" came to his defense and set him up as someone above reproach. The disgusting fact is he was stepping out of the journalistic ethical boundaries and even society's to present a lie as fact based on his agenda and only his agenda. If we are to believe that there has to be any trust between the organization (CBS) and the public in order to believe the truth and the organization is ethical by even societies basic standards, then they should have taken an ethical approach to address the issue by firing Rather and making sure that his credibility is permanently damaged within the profession. BUT instead I see him on TV, I hear him referred to as a pillar of "Journalistic Ethics" and he walked away with what a lot of people consider a crime. If there was a crime that is equal to that of the government's, then it is one of ethics in this case.
But when you really look at the issue of transparency, isn't transparency that is claimed to be the driving force behind events like Wikileaks ending up being sacrificed when that one organization happens to be the only source of news and information at the same time trying to fight to save their monopoly.
Isn't their lies, their half truths and their complicity in crimes also important?
Isn't this intentional fight to conceal the truth by one organization going against the real intent of the First Amendment and our founding fathers?
It is the court that I fear more than the ones who seem to be the criminals in your mind or the true criminals to me - Journalist who think they are above the law.
I mean simply that courts are not there to create special class of people only by qualifying them based on their jobs or by some institutional standard but to apply the laws equally. OR in another thought does this make them, the court, more of the problem than a solution for what we should be really concerned about?
Well First I meant integrity, I did a spell check and passed the correct word up - sorry.
I don't believe journalistic integrity can happen in my lifetime without taking the institution back down to a level that forces them to be equal with us, the citizen they are claiming to protect. I thought equality and openness was intended by the founding fathers, not a closed shop mentality that only the select few are judged worthy enough to be called journalist by a standard not set by the public but rather those in control. They, the founding fathers didn't see the press as the money making institution it has become, they surely didn't think that one's loyalty to one's country would be circumvented by an oath or creed to a vocation or to something that isn't and never will be greater than one's country.
They however did feel that everyone is the press in this country and news is news. The safeguard against a bad government wasn't the press being given a free ride to spin news to fit an agenda, but rather the citizen press as the safeguard by the same reasoning behind the second amendment, that everyone is responsible and everyone is the safeguard.
Well dead is surely dead, but also if the cause is great enough and his righteous feelings are such that he takes up where others left off, then he can or should follow in other's footsteps to that utopia of freedom.
Whether or not you want to define courage using him as an example, I don't see him doing anything courageous by any means.
Going down the path of disclosing information as courageous is rather in itself meaningless as anything when you actually come down to it, anyone can and many have without recognition. It does not take any nerve to put up things on a website and broadcast it to the world.
I rather look at someone being courageous as those who fight everyday out in the open to make changes to what they feel are problems. Like those who have to deal with challenges that many in our twisted society consider not acceptable but to those who are dealing with them, it has to be done.
Take the couple who are struggling to feed and cloth their kids and providing a roof over their heads while doing what ever they can to make the money to survive. Circumstances may be out of their hands but their perseverance in facing the problems every day are more courageous than Assange could ever be.
As to this guy being considered a whistleblower, there is a problem with it and the reason it is a joke. He didn't actually do anything close to what others did or are doing, he is risking less than most are and has set himself up to either get killed or to profit from it, I am thinking that he will profit from it if he lives. If he does profit one dime from it, then he has no courage at all.
Last edited: