WikiLeaks

[Stephen Biko]

Does anyone believe wikileaks doesn't spin?

You know what else they do? They give you access to the raw materials so you can judge that spin for yourself. No one else does that. Even when the info isn't a secret, nobody else includes the raw source material when they publish a story, you have to dig and in many cases, like interviews, you'll never get access.

At least traditional news media has the journalistic ideal,

And what exactly is "the journalistic ideal?" Seems to me that its to inform the public. Maybe there is some other ideal I'm unaware of.

It's media without the traditional oversight of actual media.

Like the oversight of sitting on the government wiretapping info for a year? Or perhaps the oversight of CBS sitting on the Abu Ghraib photos until the New Yorker got a hold of them from another source? Or maybe you mean gag orders preventing the reporting of public government proceedings?

[Marlin]

You know what else they do? They give you access to the raw materials so you can judge that spin for yourself. No one else does that. Even when the info isn't a secret, nobody else includes the raw source material when they publish a story, you have to dig and in many cases, like interviews, you'll never get access.

I am kind of curious how you know its the raw data? We have already established that they(wikileaks) filter it. Also, why hasn't all the info been released? Is he now hoarding data? Shouldn't he just release it as soon as he gets it for the sake of transparency?

Instead all this hype gets built up, and whether or not it changes people's opinions means nothing. It isn't changing anything, Clinton is still SOS, Obama is still president, Bank CEOs are still getting HUGE DISGUSTING bonuses, no one has been fired, nor are they. Nothing is going to change short of an armed revolution. And that, folks, is just not gonna happen in America. Some part of me wishes it would, The Postman type scenario, but not likely anytime soon.

So I retract my previous arguments against Assange, he can go ahead and post every state secret he can find, short of blueprints for megaweapons or biological weapons, it will have no impact on the world at all, we already hate our elected officials, we already know they scam, scheme, cheat, lie, steal, probably murder, and there is nothing you can do about it. What are you gonna do, elect a different guy next time round, call the cops, Alex Jones tried that on air, reported to the FBI that he had leads that point to terrorists having lunch at the Pentagon. Anwar Al-Awlaki, number 2 on America's kill list, having lunch at the Pentagon a few months after 911...Was anything done about it ?

[Stephen Biko]

I am kind of curious how you know its the raw data? We have already established that they(wikileaks) filter it.

So, with zero evidence to support it, you believe that they are lying about their entire reason for existence? You can't name even one document that wikileaks has published and has later been shown to be fraudulently edited. I think that's practically the definition of prejudgment.

Also, why hasn't all the info been released? Is he now hoarding data? Shouldn't he just release it as soon as he gets it for the sake of transparency?

They used to do it that way. In fact, they released over 1.2 million documents that way - just make a press release and put out a zip file containing all of the documents from each source. But the information overload meant very few people bothered to even dig through it. So this year they've taken a different tack.

Nothing is going to change short of an armed revolution. And that, folks, is just not gonna happen in America.

So nobody should try to make things better because its really hard to make things better? Now that's a self-defeating prophecy. The enemy of good is perfect.

Plus, you've also got this US-centric view that completely misses the point. Information released via wikileaks changed an election in Kenya such that none of the officials in the named report were re-elected. Their Kaupthing publication prevented the Icelandic government from sweeping banking reform under the carpet - maybe the rumored BoA documents will do the same here.

[Marlin]

So nobody should try to make things better because its really hard to make things better? Now that's a self-defeating prophecy. The enemy of good is perfect.

government from sweeping banking reform under the carpet - maybe the rumored BoA documents will do the same here.

It is not even in the really hard range, it is in the impossible range. The people involved have more money than we can even comprehend. Once again, it would take armed revolution or the collapse of the infrastructure they currently rely on for their power base.

He is not doing anything to make anything better. He is just posting stuff on the internet. As for Kenya, who gives a **** about Kenya? Obama probably does, but they are not a key world player by any means. All 16 people in Kenya that have internet read his post and it changed an election, now they have a whole new band of brothers to lead the way in corruption. Once again, if it came out tomorrow via Wikileaks that Hillary had a whole town in Idaho burned to the ground, the CEO of BoA stole the Crown Jewels and that the Rothchilds only ate the flesh of new born babies, what would you do? Probably the same thing I would do, not a damned thing. You are forgetting the amounts of money involved in their world. THEY DON"T CARE WHAT YOU OR I THINK! THEY ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND YES, THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW. Hell, the only reason that Madoff was busted is because he stole from other wealthy people that had the money and influence to do something about it. If he stole all that money 10K at a time from people like you and me, he would still be sailing the seven seas in his sweet *** yacht.
Most of Obama's compadres are appointed, not elected. You have no say in what goes on, nor does anyone else.

I don't care what BoA documents come out, it will do nothing. We are not even concerned about 9 trillion dollars in loans that were given to them under the rug! Once again, if it came out that they were stealing homes from so-called innocent people, or taking the government loans and putting them right into their pockets, lying on forms, purposely bribing city officials to lower the values of homes to cause the housing bubble collapse, it still would not matter. Not until every member of BoA withdrew all their cash, people with BoA mortgages, credit cards and so on just stopped paying would it make a difference.

What do you think is going to happen? Or better yet, what do you want to happen? I am just curious.

As for the TJ quote, you are partially correct. I was interpreting his words in today's state of affairs. I believe it still applies, but he was not referring to the printed press or the corruption of newspapers, he was indeed talking about government control and the creation of programs to "protect and care for the common citizen". Just not social welfare programs as we know them. I am updating my signature now

[Y33TREKker]

It is not even in the really hard range, it is in the impossible range. The people involved have more money than we can even comprehend....

Another example of placing too much esteem on those in positions of power and affluence?

Let's keep it simple, just because some have apparently decided to give up because they believe nothing can be done doesn't mean everyone has.

A quote from another President.

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt

[Marlin]

Another example of placing too much esteem on those in positions of power and affluence?

Let's keep it simple, just because some have apparently decided to give up because they believe nothing can be done doesn't mean everyone has.

A quote from another President.

'Some' infers that it is the minority. I would say almost all would be a better quantifier. Haven't seen anyone do anything of importance lately.

I am not putting too much esteem on the wealthy, but if it comes down to it, there is not a whole lot you can't do with a few million bucks. Make people disappear, car accident, fired from your job, slander of character and so on.
Money talks. Until the day that money no longer talks, it will continue to be this way. Meanwhile, I will continue to prepare for that day, and it will come, wait until the USD is no longer the world reserver currency, 10 dollar loaf of bread, 25 dollars for a gallon of gas...we have gone so long without doing things for ourselves, it will be a difficult transition to say the least. A majority of our country would have no idea what to do if Starbucks closed tomorrow, and walmart closed up shop. Just look at the last presidential election, then you will know what 'majority' I am talking about.

Ask yourself, would you know how to survive if there were no stores to get all your necessities from? Do you have the means to make your own safe water, do you have a plan on where to go when cities become death traps? Could you defend your family and your belongings? Could you make your own vehicle repairs, are in you in good enough shape to hike miles if need be? Can you start a fire or make a shelter? (this is not directed at any specific person, but more of a reality check for those that are reading)

When I was in Guam, a large typhoon decimated the island. We went almost a month with no gasoline, the island's fuel farm burned to the ground. No gas=no electricity=no stores=money was worthless. If it wasn't for the Navy and Airforce having their own fuel/water/power plants, that island would have been a warzone. That was a wake-up call for me.

So until money is worthless, those that have the gold will continue to rule. You can get mad at them, you can call them names, but it makes absolutely no difference since the individuals are not elected officials, they are appointed or just simply employees. Until someone starts firing shots at em, there isn't a whole lot you can do. Look at the OJ trial, proof that if you have enough money, you are above the law (unless you Eff with another extremely wealthy individual)

I do wonder why no one has responded to the fact that we gave the major banks 9 trillion dollars at less than 1% interest with no public disclosure until a few years later. Where did we even get 9 trillion dollars? Oh wait, we didn't, the Fed just printed more money. You could invest that kind of money and earn ridiculous interest beyond 1%, oh wait, thats what they did, all at our expense and devaluation of the dollar. We could have divided that 9 trillion between every tax paying citizen and solved every financial crisis in the world. Houses paid off, new cars purchased, all kinds of things purchased, health care no longer an issue...

[Y33TREKker]

'Some' infers that it is the minority. I would say almost all would be a better quantifier.

Actually, I used the word "some" out of respect because I didn't just want to come out and say "you", but since you've also seen fit to now try to spin my comments to mean something they don't, I suppose all bets are off.

Given the rest of your post, it's obvious you've decided to go "glass is half-full" and give up. That's your prerogative of course, but just because it's what you've decided, it doesn't mean it's the best alternative to choose.

I'm no genius, and admit I can sometimes be wrong, so I sometimes also keep quotes in mind from those more intelligent than myself.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

[Stephen Biko]

INothing is going to change short of an armed revolution.

Why does your nihilism stop there? Name one armed revolution that has fixed the problem of corruption in the history of the world. You can't -- we had one 200 years ago and look where we are today -- a total failure by your very own definition.

Your entire argument boils down to defining the situation as unfixable and then dismissing anyone who says otherwise. You aren't even a glass half-empty kinda guy, you are a glass is a bottomless pit kinda guy. Good thing people like Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and tens of thousands more weren't nihilists.

[Marlin]

Why does your nihilism stop there? Name one armed revolution that has fixed the problem of corruption in the history of the world. You can't -- we had one 200 years ago and look where we are today -- a total failure by your very own definition.

Umm, a 200 year run is pretty good, and I never said we are a failure, especially by my own definition. But with huge sums of money comes complete corruption, especially when it isn't your money, hence the necessity for a small government and lower taxes. Let people take care of themselves, bring back responsibility and accountability. That has to start at the bottom. In counter to your anti-revolution question, name me one successful revolution that occurred without violence that was just as successful, one that has lasted 200 years.Hell, while your at it, name a ruling society that has lasted...greeks-nope,romans-nope,persians-nope, European monarchies-nope.

Your entire argument boils down to defining the situation as unfixable and then dismissing anyone who says otherwise.
I never dismissed anyone, I just continue to ask the question of what you are going to do when wiki releases something of actual importance. What are YOU going to do? You aren't even a glass half-empty kinda guy, you are a glass is a bottomless pit kinda guy. I am actually a silver lining kind of guy for most things. But I am realist when it comes to these big picture concepts. I have been around the world, I have seen some ****ty places, Bahrain, UAE, Malaysia and so on. I have seen what becomes of a place overrun with corruption. That is the path we are headed down. Good thing people like Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and tens of thousands more weren't nihilists.

All the above folks were civil rights leaders, not whistle blowers. Those are two completely different things. If the country found out that everyone in South Dakota had been enslaved to work a government Nike factory, something might happen, but corporate corruption, government spying, we already know about all these things, and we don't care. We care more about catering to the gay minority than we do the big problems that affect the entire nation and our economic foundations because helping the underdog makes us feel better. Toppling a corporate empire doesn't. There is no risk in supporting some special interest group.
Hopefully someone can make a liar out of me and lead a non-violent revolution that will set things straight. Till then, I will continue building my survival kit to support my family in a worst case scenario and not wait for someone else to take care of me and mine.

[Stephen Biko]

All the above folks were civil rights leaders, not whistle blowers.

You don't know who Upton Sinclair was.

We care more about catering to the gay minority than we do the big problems that affect the entire nation and our economic foundations because helping the underdog makes us feel better.

That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.

I never dismissed anyone, I just continue to ask the question of what you are going to do when wiki releases something of actual importance.

Sure you did - when you say things like, "Until the day that money no longer talks, it will continue to be this way." and "Nothing is going to change short of an armed revolution." Those are outright dismissals of the idea that informed voting and the rule of law can change anything.

[Y33TREKker]

...but corporate corruption, government spying, we already know about all these things, and we don't care...

And if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

[Marlin]

On the contrary. My answer was even specifically tailored for you; a person who has admittedly chosen to do nothing...at least in the way of supporting an entity that is trying to do something anyway.

Saying that you agree with wikileaks or not agreeing is not doing something. My lack of caring about wikileaks does not weaken or strengthen their position.

I provided an option anyone could choose to adopt, and just because you personally didn't feel that option qualified as an acceptable answer doesn't mean it didn't.
What option? I didn't see anything about any possible actions to be taken.

Viewed even another way though, maybe it's as you say, and the efforts of wikileaks will do no good. Since you think what they are attempting is impossible, why is it apparently not enough for you to just sit back and watch them fail? Instead, you are going out of your way and expending an awful lot of effort to convince others that's the inevitable conclusion.

Well why is that? That's my question.

Multiple reasons:
1. I enjoy intelligible banter. You have some valid points and do not resort to name calling. For the most part, your arguments include some meat to justify your position.
2. I do care what others think,one way or another. I am adult enough to admit that I could be wrong, and if someone else feels so strongly as to support the opposite side, it must mean something...
3. If there was more conversations like ours during the elections, we wouldn't have had a majority of the population voting without having any real idea what they were voting for. At work we called it MTV voting. There should be Q&A when you vote, or else your vote does not count, predisclosed questions, you gotta get 3/5 correct or something along those lines. Candidates can only spend a certain amount of money on their campaign to prevent buying the vote...you get the idea. Maybe we make it so they can only have a certain amount of money, so you know they are a Real American and representative of the majority of our nation. It should be popular vote only, to prevent the major cities from determining the entire state's vote. IIf you are a liberal in Utah, your vote doesn't count. If you are a conservative in California, might as well not even vote. It doesn't count.
4. I am not taking any classes right now, too cold to work on the VX, and I only go into work every few days for christmas stand down.
5. I am not really expending any effort, just a few minutes here and there on the puter, keeps me from buying stuff I don't need...lol.


That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.
Actually, based on the way propositions pass through the senate and house, they can't do both at the same time. DADT is just another 'look over here' tactic that really doesn't matter in the big picture. How many millions of dollars in man hours alone did the house/senate waste on something that affects a very TINY portion of our population. Especially since they still have to follow the rules of the UCMJ, they will not get benefits for their 'partners' or base housing privileges, commissary, medical and so on. We are actually insulting them even more. We respected women enough to spend billions of dollars to create their own berthing areas, millions to put a few on submarines, but we can't spare any money for the homosexuals. It is all a dog and pony show. I think we should make handicap accessible facilities for our armed forces. Its not fair, we are discriminating against those in wheelchairs and whatnot. I realize that is a cheeky response, but the spirit of my point remains intact.
When you try to care about everything, it loses its value. How about focusing on important things, such as social security, immigration, drug control. Per the census bureau, in 2006 there were an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, a bulk of which were mexican/south american. Lets say only 1/4 have children each year. That means we have 20 million or so in our country.
Drugs are out of control. We kick students out of the Navy every week for the abuse of legal derivatives of illegal drugs. Social security is going to be broke in the future if we keep borrowing against it. This is a program that every tax paying citizen HAS TO PAY INTO. Same concept as Obamacare, force me to pay into something that I will most likely never receive a return from.

Sorry this is longer than I had initially intended,
the point being, we know our politicians are corrupt, we know corporate america is corrupt, we know shady business goes on at all the levels of government, we don't need wikileaks to prove it. We already know these things, but nothing happens. Hillary Clinton is still in her position, all of the clowns appointed by Obama and Bush alike are still in charge, not in jail. I just want someone to tell me what they expect to happen, and what they are going to DO about it.

[Stephen Biko]

That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.

Actually, based on the way propositions pass through the senate and house, they can't do both at the same time.

Which is irrelevant since 99+% of the work in congress does not happen on the floor.

Umm, a 200 year run is pretty good, and I never said we are a failure,

If you were to read old newspapers you'd see that people have been complaining about similar sorts of corruption for at least 100 years now - probably more. I haven't read any older than that so I can't say how long the corruption has been rampant. And if all your ranting about things like why they haven't put entire staffs of political appointees in jail isn't a claim of failure, then I don't know what is.

BTW your habit of sometimes quoting in red instead of using the system's quoting mechanism discourages people from reading and responding to what you write.

[Marlin]

And if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Oh, I should have said "we don't care enough to actually do anything about it". A representative doesn't get reelected, he still gets paid for the rest of his life and receives full benefits. That is like being suspended with pay....pick me, pick me! I want to be suspended with pay.

[Y33TREKker]

...Or maybe you mean gag orders preventing the reporting of public government proceedings?

An excerpt from that story.

"The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".

What's amazing is that things should ever get to the point where that should even be questioned.

And I have to finally say it Marlin, give the quote in your sig, I'm surprised you've had such a problem with what Wikileaks says they are attempting to do.