Uh, I will only hear the most glowing of praises for the journalism god that is George Will. The man wrote a diatribe about jeans people, that's next level shit when it comes to being a bitter old man.
Isn't wikileaks stated purpose to makje the US look bad? Haven't they released edited video to that effect?
Yes - the "Collateral Murder" video is heavily edited - an action that got Colbert to break kayfabe on-air just to tear Assange a new one.
The more interesting thing is what Assange says about the issue:
One constant criticism of Wikileaks' helicopter video has been that its heavy editorial slant clashed with the supposed objectivity of the material they presented. Colbert challenged Assange on this point: "You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called 'collateral murder.' That's not leaking, that's a pure editorial." Assange responded that Wikileaks promises their sources that they will "try and get the maximum possible political impact for the material the give us." According to Assange's formulation, Wikileaks is essentially an advocacy group whose strength lies in its ability to secure incriminating documents.
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
It's not journalism though, it's editorial. He's pushing a specific political agenda by giving people pushing specific political agendas a soap-box to stand on.
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
By the accounts I've read they tapped it while she was still the opposition leader in '02, which is a bit shakier. Still within their role, but not as obviously so.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Fox News Mantra. Once you publish the shit out of a lie, you can discreetly print a retraction two weeks later. That way people believe the lie and think the retraction is just some kind of nudge nudge wink wink type thing.
See also: CBS / 60 Minutes. I don't have words to describe how angry that situation makes me. Also, unlike Rathergate, I bet no reporters or producers are fired. But hiring that guy from Fox News was a great decision and has no lasting repercussions... Hnnnnnnnnngggghhhhhh.
Naah, they were clearly hoodwinked by the best. Dude who's got a tell all book on Benghazi, published by a conservative publisher, and his story doesn't match up? Probably fine, I'm sure his excuse is true. I mean he did scale a 12ft wall and fight a terrorist off in hand to hand combat. Next you're going to tell me his model girlfriend from canada is a lie too.
Right clearly hoodwinked by a guy CBS was also publishing a book that was right wing dribble. What they did was bullshit, and then hope no one caught on. And again Logan herself was a bad choice for this piece because she's a warhawk who wanted Libya bombed a month after the attack.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Fox News Mantra. Once you publish the shit out of a lie, you can discreetly print a retraction two weeks later. That way people believe the lie and think the retraction is just some kind of nudge nudge wink wink type thing.
See also: CBS / 60 Minutes. I don't have words to describe how angry that situation makes me. Also, unlike Rathergate, I bet no reporters or producers are fired. But hiring that guy from Fox News was a great decision and has no lasting repercussions... Hnnnnnnnnngggghhhhhh.
Naah, they were clearly hoodwinked by the best. Dude who's got a tell all book on Benghazi, published by a conservative publisher, and his story doesn't match up? Probably fine, I'm sure his excuse is true. I mean he did scale a 12ft wall and fight a terrorist off in hand to hand combat. Next you're going to tell me his model girlfriend from canada is a lie too.
Right clearly hoodwinked by a guy CBS was also publishing a book that was right wing dribble. What they did was bullshit, and then hope no one caught on. And again Logan herself was a bad choice for this piece because she's a warhawk who wanted Libya bombed a month after the attack.
Worth noting that the right wing dribble book was published by a press owned by the same parent company as CBS. It's not being hoodwinked when you are promoting your corporate partner's products - without mentioning this on air. It's synergy.
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Right. I'm not racist. I just don't recognize my country. Also, the sight of you, and your used-to-be-lesbian black wife, and your brown children make me sick to my stomach. It's not like I want to lynch you or anything.
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Right. I'm not racist. I just don't recognize my country. Also, the sight of you, and your used-to-be-lesbian black wife, and your brown children make me sick to my stomach. It's not like I want to lynch you or anything.
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Right. I'm not racist. I just don't recognize my country. Also, the sight of you, and your used-to-be-lesbian black wife, and your brown children make me sick to my stomach. It's not like I want to lynch you or anything.
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Right. I'm not racist. I just don't recognize my country. Also, the sight of you, and your used-to-be-lesbian black wife, and your brown children make me sick to my stomach. It's not like I want to lynch you or anything.
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Right. I'm not racist. I just don't recognize my country. Also, the sight of you, and your used-to-be-lesbian black wife, and your brown children make me sick to my stomach. It's not like I want to lynch you or anything.
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Right. I'm not racist. I just don't recognize my country. Also, the sight of you, and your used-to-be-lesbian black wife, and your brown children make me sick to my stomach. It's not like I want to lynch you or anything.
Am I the only one who finds it funny how the same people who whine about "political correctness" are really easily butthurt?
Well, at least he didn't try to the old, "I can't be racist, I have a black friend" ploy.
The real sinister bit at work here is this comment though "Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?"
I think the more accurate question would be, "should I maybe consider it's none of my fucking business?" But that salacious little tidbit is just too good not to put in the column.
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Right. I'm not racist. I just don't recognize my country. Also, the sight of you, and your used-to-be-lesbian black wife, and your brown children make me sick to my stomach. It's not like I want to lynch you or anything.
Am I the only one who finds it funny how the same people who whine about "political correctness" are really easily butthurt?
Well, at least he didn't try to the old, "I can't be racist, I have a black friend" ploy.
The real sinister bit at work here is this comment though "Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?"
I think the more accurate question would be, "should I maybe consider it's none of my fucking business?" But that salacious little tidbit is just too good not to put in the column.
He went the "well some people might think this" route. Also known as the biggest dickslap in journalism
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: that's pretty blatantly false
B: like they were doing their job
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: Actually, we do that because we need to verify that our "allies" are operating in our own interests.
B: My opinion would be that the MI-6 people did their job, and the folks in Ft. Meade failed at theirs.
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: Actually, we do that because we need to verify that our "allies" are operating in our own interests.
B: My opinion would be that the MI-6 people did their job, and the folks in Ft. Meade failed at theirs.
Bit harsh on the Ft.Meade guys. If MI6 were to tap Obama's phone, it'd be 50-50 on whether they were doing on behalf of the NSA.
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: that's pretty blatantly false
B: like they were doing their job
It's pretty blatantly the opposite of false.
It's a great way to make people who should be your allies pissed at you and more likely to side against you in things like trade disputes and economic sanctions. It's a way to risk losing overseas bases. It hurts your image abroad, not just among the leaders but on all levels of society.
But hey, 'Merica doesn't need no friends.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: that's pretty blatantly false
B: like they were doing their job
It's pretty blatantly the opposite of false.
It's a great way to make people who should be your allies pissed at you and more likely to side against you in things like trade disputes and economic sanctions. It's a way to risk losing overseas bases. It hurts your image abroad, not just among the leaders but on all levels of society.
We have a thread for this discussion. I would highly recommend reading it or one of its many predecessors in order to gain an understanding of exactly what the NSA's mandate entails and the scope of their abilities.
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: that's pretty blatantly false
B: like they were doing their job
It's pretty blatantly the opposite of false.
It's a great way to make people who should be your allies pissed at you and more likely to side against you in things like trade disputes and economic sanctions. It's a way to risk losing overseas bases. It hurts your image abroad, not just among the leaders but on all levels of society.
But hey, 'Merica doesn't need no friends.
Everybody spies. As it's been said, nations do not have allies, they have interests. And as such, they spy to make sure that their alliances actually support their interests.
To be used you would have to be ignorant of what the user is up to. Whereas here I think CBS knows full well that partial transcripts can't be trusted, but is far more interested in juicy scoops garnering page views.
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: that's pretty blatantly false
B: like they were doing their job
It's pretty blatantly the opposite of false.
It's a great way to make people who should be your allies pissed at you and more likely to side against you in things like trade disputes and economic sanctions. It's a way to risk losing overseas bases. It hurts your image abroad, not just among the leaders but on all levels of society.
But hey, 'Merica doesn't need no friends.
Everybody spies. As it's been said, nations do not have allies, they have interests. And as such, they spy to make sure that their alliances actually support their interests.
yeah even as an opponent to the NSA's current activities (as much so as the lack of efficacy of gather so much unsortable data as anything, they're creating so many hay stacks! plus, you know, freedom of speech, search and seizure, etc) I'm okay with them spying on foreign nations
because you can bet your ass their intelligence services are spying on the US to the fullest extent of their capability, there's a reason Putin told Snowden to stop leaking shit, Russia already knows the US is spying on them (and vice versa) but in order to conduct international diplomacy it's in everyone's best interest if we pretend we aren't
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: that's pretty blatantly false
B: like they were doing their job
It's pretty blatantly the opposite of false.
It's a great way to make people who should be your allies pissed at you and more likely to side against you in things like trade disputes and economic sanctions. It's a way to risk losing overseas bases. It hurts your image abroad, not just among the leaders but on all levels of society.
But hey, 'Merica doesn't need no friends.
Everybody spies. As it's been said, nations do not have allies, they have interests. And as such, they spy to make sure that their alliances actually support their interests.
yeah even as an opponent to the NSA's current activities (as much so as the lack of efficacy of gather so much unsortable data as anything, they're creating so many hay stacks! plus, you know, freedom of speech, search and seizure, etc) I'm okay with them spying on foreign nations
because you can bet your ass their intelligence services are spying on the US to the fullest extent of their capability, there's a reason Putin told Snowden to stop leaking shit, Russia already knows the US is spying on them (and vice versa) but in order to conduct international diplomacy it's in everyone's best interest if we pretend we aren't
There's a reason that one of the nicknames for international espionage is "The Great Game".
In the case of what laws both of them broke and the way they did it, there was no heroism involved. I feel pretty safe in that belief. To me they are an example of needing better vetting in our military and a tighter lock on security, nothing more.
So you don't believe any of the released material was valuable for the public to have? Or is it that the damage suffered as a result of the release outweighs any potential positive?
I don't, and I do believe there was damage overall. Especially in the fact much like most of the shit Wikileaks puts out, it implies the US is alone in its spying, when that is far from the case. Like Brazil was all decrying us one minute and then admitting "yeah we do it too" the next.
I think in both cases, Manning and Snowden, they're highly damaged individuals who's actions managed to be both good and terrible at the same time. I personally think what they did was courageous and important, as the US's love affair with secrecy and covertness needs to go the way of the dodo. I mean jesus..they were tapping Merkel's phone (near as I can tell) just because they could.
And like it or not, Glenn Greenwald is the guy at the forefront of that kind of journalism, so I think he's important and needed, since the mainstream press is just beyond broken.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: that's pretty blatantly false
B: like they were doing their job
It's pretty blatantly the opposite of false.
It's a great way to make people who should be your allies pissed at you and more likely to side against you in things like trade disputes and economic sanctions. It's a way to risk losing overseas bases. It hurts your image abroad, not just among the leaders but on all levels of society.
But hey, 'Merica doesn't need no friends.
Everybody spies. As it's been said, nations do not have allies, they have interests. And as such, they spy to make sure that their alliances actually support their interests.
Last thing about this from me, but supposedly we really don't spy on the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. And vice versa, thus being the exceptions that prove the rule.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
The more interesting thing is what Assange says about the issue: http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-founder-on-helicopter-video
The writer here is dead on about what Assange is really saying.
And it pretty much destroys any claim they have to being anything but a political advocacy group.
It's not journalism though, it's editorial. He's pushing a specific political agenda by giving people pushing specific political agendas a soap-box to stand on.
As much as I don't want to bring the NSA thread into this one. You realize that tapping the phone of a the head of a major economic power who has the ability to influence events on a world stage and who is at the center of some of the larger political events of our time is pretty much exactly who the NSA should be spying on, right?
By the accounts I've read they tapped it while she was still the opposition leader in '02, which is a bit shakier. Still within their role, but not as obviously so.
Italics for "mmmhmmm, suuuuuure" and bold for "ahahahahahahaha, right after saying the GOP isn't racist you point out that they're one of the most moronic flavors of racist I can think of." "Conventional views." Right, Richard. Right.
Just, Godfuckingdamnit.
Right clearly hoodwinked by a guy CBS was also publishing a book that was right wing dribble. What they did was bullshit, and then hope no one caught on. And again Logan herself was a bad choice for this piece because she's a warhawk who wanted Libya bombed a month after the attack.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And CBS is on the offensive again with more right whargarbl with a partial transcript from Darrel Issa.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Worth noting that the right wing dribble book was published by a press owned by the same parent company as CBS. It's not being hoodwinked when you are promoting your corporate partner's products - without mentioning this on air. It's synergy.
Mr. Pierce put it best: Stop This Man Before He Writes Something Again.
Edit: Coates is much more blunt:
this time supposedly getting an Obamacare Navigator to say some stuff about not fully reporting cash income.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Apparently the Navigators are all ACORN plants.
Oak Trees?
They didn't stop him.
I now consider the phrase "op/ed by Richard Cohen" to be a threat.
I wonder who's middle class career he'll end up ruining this time..
The Derp is strong with this one.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Am I the only one who finds it funny how the same people who whine about "political correctness" are really easily butthurt?
Steam: pazython
Well, at least he didn't try to the old, "I can't be racist, I have a black friend" ploy.
The real sinister bit at work here is this comment though "Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?"
I think the more accurate question would be, "should I maybe consider it's none of my fucking business?" But that salacious little tidbit is just too good not to put in the column.
The more I see from these morons the more I believe him.
Edit: and for fuck's sake, I hate this "but that isn't me" thing.
Like after you punch someone you can say "but but but I DON'T punch 99% of the people I meet! I'm not a puncher! I support not punching!"
Yeah but this particular time man
He went the "well some people might think this" route. Also known as the biggest dickslap in journalism
You fuck a goat one time!
A. You realize that tapping the phone of the leader or potential leader of a major US ally is pretty much exactly who the NSA shouldn't be spying on?
B. How would you feel about MI6 tapping Obama's phones?
A: that's pretty blatantly false
B: like they were doing their job
A: Actually, we do that because we need to verify that our "allies" are operating in our own interests.
B: My opinion would be that the MI-6 people did their job, and the folks in Ft. Meade failed at theirs.
Wait...do you actually think they're not?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Bit harsh on the Ft.Meade guys. If MI6 were to tap Obama's phone, it'd be 50-50 on whether they were doing on behalf of the NSA.
It's pretty blatantly the opposite of false.
It's a great way to make people who should be your allies pissed at you and more likely to side against you in things like trade disputes and economic sanctions. It's a way to risk losing overseas bases. It hurts your image abroad, not just among the leaders but on all levels of society.
But hey, 'Merica doesn't need no friends.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/184165/the-growing-surveillance-state
We have a thread for this discussion. I would highly recommend reading it or one of its many predecessors in order to gain an understanding of exactly what the NSA's mandate entails and the scope of their abilities.
Everybody spies. As it's been said, nations do not have allies, they have interests. And as such, they spy to make sure that their alliances actually support their interests.
pleasepaypreacher.net
To be used you would have to be ignorant of what the user is up to. Whereas here I think CBS knows full well that partial transcripts can't be trusted, but is far more interested in juicy scoops garnering page views.
yeah even as an opponent to the NSA's current activities (as much so as the lack of efficacy of gather so much unsortable data as anything, they're creating so many hay stacks! plus, you know, freedom of speech, search and seizure, etc) I'm okay with them spying on foreign nations
because you can bet your ass their intelligence services are spying on the US to the fullest extent of their capability, there's a reason Putin told Snowden to stop leaking shit, Russia already knows the US is spying on them (and vice versa) but in order to conduct international diplomacy it's in everyone's best interest if we pretend we aren't
There's a reason that one of the nicknames for international espionage is "The Great Game".
Last thing about this from me, but supposedly we really don't spy on the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. And vice versa, thus being the exceptions that prove the rule.