MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Snowden's Dad: Wikileaks is Exploiting My Son
By NCD on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 11:54am |...During Friday morning's television interview, Lon Snowden......He voiced concern his son was being exploited by Wikileaks, which has offered legal assistance to the 30-year-old. "I don't want to put him in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him," he said. "I think Wikileaks, if you've looked at past history, you know, their focus isn't necessarily the constitution of the United States. It's simply to release as much information as possible."....
Snowden's Dad states the obvious. The clear fact of exploitation that I have been posting here, that Snowden is being exploited by Saint of Secrets King Julien Assange and his gang at Grand Theft Secrets. King Julien wants the secrets, all he can get, and he doesn't care what happens to those he preys upon to get them.
URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23100746
- Add new comment
- 2120 reads
Comments
After reading this from here
I have a feeling there are no kings residing anymore in the Ecuadoran London Embassy, only humble serfs.
Assange really hurt his "brand" this time. With this Ecuador embassy stuff followed up by Snowden's Dad doing a full court press what future leakers are going to trust Wikileaks' assurances about safety in the future? (Not to mention some more publicity about the supposed FBI informant within Wikileaks happening at the same time.)
I can't help but think of the phrase and your name will be Mudd.
by artappraiser on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 1:25pm
More tarnish for that crown; Gibney's movie on Wikileaks opens in Australia next week' excerpts from a review, my bold highlighting:
by artappraiser on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 1:52pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 2:08pm
Uh, the Guardian has cooled on Assange. You might want to evaluate stories based on that fact. They've now got this guy claiming Assange's buddy was feeding leaks to Belorus' Lukashenko and other unlikely spiel. That doesn't mean Assange has a halo, but a lot of people are looking to take him down.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 2:20pm
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Opening the floodgates on "information" about Julian Assange, a free unimpeded transparent flow of information. Leaks about leakers. What's not to like?
Uh, the Guardian has cooled on Assange.
No kidding? Think that was something that happened after they started working with him and got to know him?
Strange they hadn't any qualms about hiring people like Glenn Greenwald after all that. Not.
by artappraiser on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 2:36pm
Yes, but it was the Guardian's reporter David Leigh that screwed up by publishing a password - a stupid thing to do even if Wikileaks should have pulled down the file earlier & likely been more clever. The Guardian then decided to double down, defending their errant reporter, like a devoted mother of a very stupid child.
So the cooling seems to have started there, or was it earlier when the Guardian took Wikileaks document and published them with the New York Times, even though Wikileaks had refused these docs to the Times.
Yes, I'm pleased the Guardian hosts Greenwald, but that doesn't change the fact that they did a couple wrongs towards Wikileaks and now seem to have developed a guilty grudge.
More on the password issue at the here at Spiegel - Leigh actually wrote in his book the part of the password he was supposed to memorize, and Domscheit-Berg actually took the anonymous submission code when he left Wikileaks. But Assange is the evil self-absorbed one?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 3:08pm
There's a lot of conflating of what I see as different stories and different personalities. Not all leakers are the same and not all journalists that publish leaked material are the same.
First I've seen this conflating of Manning and Snowden when imo what they did was significantly different. So even before Snowden I posted I could not support Manning's actions while I'm now supporting Snowden's release.
Now it seems people are conflating Assange and Greenwald. There's a lot to be critiqued in wikileaks and especially Assange. For many reasons I don't support wikileaks or Assange. But I don't see a similarity between what Assange has done and what Greenwald has done. I've yet to see anything Greenwald has done that I would critique. So far it appears to me that Greenwald is dealing with these leaks as I would expect a serious and responsible journalist should. I can't really say the same for all of Assange's behavior.
Have I missed something? Why is it you're seeming to conflate these two very different personalities and their very different behaviors? Do you have a link with some clear evidence or at least a convincing argument of Greenwald's misbehavior?
by ocean-kat on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 3:40pm
I think these are very salient points. I, too, have seen a lot of conflating of Manning/Snowden and Assange/Greenwald, and I also think that there are vast differences between Manning and Snowden and between Assange and Greenwald. In the former case, however, not all of the differences are positive. On one hand, it's in Snowden's favor that his leaks appear to be more focused, as oppose to the firehose that came from Manning. On the other hand, since Snowden has apparently leaked information to Hong Kong and/or China and possibly Russia that we don't necessarily know the contents of, we don't exactly know what he leaked.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 3:53pm
Snowden has got himself stuck in a difficult situation. I don't support all his actions. The leak of IP addresses to a journalist in Hong Kong being one. But there's been a lot of speculation and even accusations about what he might have leaked beyond that with absolutely no evidence, especially in regards to Russia. He may or he may not. I don't like and can not accept speculation without a bit of evidence.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 5:24pm
That is a problem.We don't have transparency from the WH, but we don't have transparency from Snowden either. With IP addresses and other information did he release?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 6:22pm
Fair enough.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 7:13pm
Have I missed something?
I'd say you totally misread my comment. Maybe it was the sarcasm, I don't know. I basically agree with you, but go further, add a bit more of the NCD view about Assange being a egomaniacal jerk and fuck up.
Percales is saying--the mean prejudiced Guardian, beware you can't trust what they say on this, it's part of a plot against Assange. And I am going: right, just like the mean prejudiced Guardian hired Glen Greenwald and is serving as the main conduit for Snowden's leaks? His complaint is therefore so absurd!
The point: one's a professional journalist with no complaints from past and present co-worker and employers, and pretty high integrity, the other has proved himself time and again and continues to prove himself an arrogant fuck up and driven by ego that virtually nobody who has worked with is happy with!. It just could be that after years of this, it's not a conspiracy, but he's really a ego-driven fuck up? I mean really, it's getting to be too much. He can't even work well with Ecuador now. Maybe nearly everyone in the media that has worked with Assange dislikes him now because in factual reality, he's a jerk and really is doing all the jerky stuff now that is being reported now? And he probably did a lot of the jerky stuff that was reported in years past? And now if he can piss off the President of Ecuador in the situation he is in now, chances are like real great that the Guardian is not spinning much at all if at all?
Grows ever clearer to me every new story over years is that the adoration of Assange is a "emporer with no clothes" story situation. People just can't let go and see he's really an incompetent doofus, not at all ideal leader of the movement he started nor a brilliant philosopher with solutions to the world's problems. Always the "it must be U.S. propagandists" excuses on the criticism of Assange, over and over. I can't wait to read the convoluted excuses that will now explain President Correa's statement, which came after he broke trade ties with U.S. Somebody must be forcing him to say that, because Julian Assange is wearing a very fancy set of clothes...
by artappraiser on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 4:28pm
Why do you have to exaggerate with "the mean prejudiced Guardian". It's well documented the Guardian went against Wikileaks' agreement in publishing with the Times, and screwed up with the password. (2010 the first, 2011 the 2nd)
So how do you place those 2 facts in context of the rest? Or do you think they're not facts? or not relevant?
Note: I didn't name anyone else here (much less "adoration"), and I'm just laying out what Spiegel detailed at length. Thoughts?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 4:42pm
Ah sarcasm. I have this tendency to get sarcastic, too sarcastic, I struggle with that problem and I've noticed how sometimes people don't get my meaning. Sorry I misunderstood.
You're analysis is a bit harsher than mine but I generally agree with it. .
I do think his claim that he fears extradition to the US over the Manning leaks if he returns to face the rape charge is not totally unreasonable. It gives him slightly credible grounds to claim the high ground. I wish Sweden could find some way to deal with that. Why not promise not to extradite him to the US over the Manning leaks? He would either have to return to face the rape charges or lose what little credibility he still has. What ever might happen in the rape trial, thank god, the story would finally be over. Assange would become at most a bit player on the world stage, if anyone paid any attention to him at all.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 5:06pm
Now the other issue here: Assange.
Is he "incompetent"? well, he did a few things rather well, and since 2011 there's been a lot of pressure from big governments and he's still standing though locked in an embassy. So doesn't seem "incompetent", though outcomes could be better. Or worse - RIP al-Awlaki.
Overall I just thought he was a hacker with sime ideals about free information and transparent government. Does it matter whether people like him? Mel Gibson makes (some) good movies but he seems alternately endearing and a jerk. Glenn Greenwald is repetitive like Bob Somerby. Al Gore is fat and now divorced and rides in airplanes and invested to be rich. Manning seems a bit weird (and not because he's gay). Snowden gave some data to the Chinese and I think his girlfriend danced on a poll. Grayson is pompous even when he's right and he lost his previous election. Correa's a socialist and while he talks about leveling the field against monied interests he probably wants some of that power himself.
So maybe Assange talked too much re: Snowden & put Ecuador in bad light. Minus. But he/Wikileaks seem to have helped Snowden. Plus if you think Snowden deserves help, minus if not. Wikileaks carefully released a lot of useful docs that showed corruption & blood-letting from a number of governments. Plus it seems. Then they + the Guardian screwed up, and a big batch came out unredacted. Overall minus.
How difficult is this? It's not adoration, it's not condemnation - it's just evaluating the important parts with some detached objectivity, no? I don't care about Obama's personality, Hillary's personality, Clapper's personality, Holder's personality, Scalia's personality, Ron Wyden's personality, David Addington's personality. I don't give a shit if any of them are liked or have friends. I care about what they do, precedents they set, good or bad in each act. By the way, that last link was provided by the Guardian. Just because I think they screwed up some (not all) with Wikileaks doesn't mean I think they're bad - I think they do a lot of good. Are our only options to put people in thumbs up-thumbs down categories?
Even with Wikileaks, just because the effects of the Arab Spring look like a good thing doesn't mean every 1 of their actions was proper, effective, good. Just evaluate it in context.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 5:26pm
Peracles, this last comment was so reasonable, that as I read down I thought it must have been someone other than you who wrote it!
(I hope you won't blast me for having a little fun at your expense. Sometimes you do tend to write a little past your actual point and then pretend you meant to do it....)
I agree with your overall point here--viewing these events in context is important, and so is understanding that people do odd things in unfamiliar situations. We've all watched (or heard about) Survivor, where we take people and ask them to do something challenging, and then sit back to enjoy watching previously competent people behave like odious jerks. I think that's the real meaning of the phrase "power corrupts"--most people don't become evil when given extra responsibility, they just don't have much competence at the new thing, and get grumpy and defensive about it. Multiply that by a lot, and over time, previously mild-mannered people come to be dictators.
I suspect that Assange has always been a bit of a nut, with some good ideas and capabilities, weighed down by jerkish tendencies, but it didn't matter as much before he did that one important Wikileaks thing. Now, in order to be seen as even competent, he has to be so much better than his previous self. Should we be surprised that he's not?
The trick for the rest of us is to maintain our own viewpoint and not be pulled into changing it just because someone who also holds it did something dumb. There's a point at which we might lose so much respect for someone that we also examine our view, but it shouldn't be a knee-jerk thing.
Right?
by erica20 on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 6:23pm
I think wikileaks was a flawed concept right from the beginning. It starts from the premise that leaks are good because "information wants to be free." Each individual leak has to be looked at carefully to determine its place on the good/bad spectrum. Sometimes that determination gets very difficult as many factors are weighed. Wikileaks sole purpose was to reveal secret information. Such a narrow focus is a prescription for disaster, especially in this most sensitive of areas. Then Assange asked for hackers to troll computers to get those secret documents. Young immature computer geeks, sometimes teens, geniuses in programming, mostly into the thrill of getting into a secure data base but with little ability to evaluate the information and make rational decisions about how appropriate it would be to release it. Or young men like Manning just dumping 700,000 documents he couldn't possible read. Wikileaks was trust us (read trust me Julian Assange) to make those decisions.
It would take a saint to make wikileaks work and I was very uncomfortable about it from the start. Before they released a single document. Yes they did some good. But I'm not all all surprised to see its downward spiral, the concept was unworkable.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 7:09pm
Agree with both Erica & Ocean-kat. And I don't mind a bit or even a lot of fun at my expense (as long as it's fun - and there's rum)
Part of the problem with Occupy Wall Street is if you meet these people, many you wouldn't trust to walk your dog. But fighting back against trillion dollar ripoffs, I'm so glad someone is doing something, even if it's a bit futile. Somewhat similar with a leaks group. Activists can be a bit weird, but government officials when they're condoning indiscriminate tasering, drones, full-out assault on a minority group (or even medical marijuana) or just kicking a billion dollars some donor's way can be rather evil in that boring button-down white-shirt kind of vibe.
So it's only because our government has gotten so weird and over-the-top that I find myself cheering some for these fringe types. Government surveillance of anything and everyone is a bad idea, just like freaks leaking all government secrets. So somewhere between Pluto (yeah, I know, it's not a planet anymore) and the Sun lives a more optimal point. But at the moment the Sun is way too hot, so I'm leaning towards Pluto a bit until I get tired. Wish we could settle somewhere in the asteroid belt instead to relax, just drink moquitos, swat the mosqitoes and dodge flying rocks.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/29/2013 - 2:57am
Al Gore is divorced?! How the heck did I miss that?
by Orlando on Sat, 06/29/2013 - 1:56am
I thought everybody knew about it.
by Aaron Carine on Sat, 06/29/2013 - 12:06pm
Wikileaks didn't "release as much information as possible". This is bullshit. They carefully vetted documents through different media organizations. It was only later when the Guardian's reporter published a password that they had to do a mass dump.
Ever occur to you that the Feds can be using Snowden's father? "come on, make a nice appeal for comity so we can bring your son home - and say something nasty about that mean Assange while you're at it".
Did Wikileaks have anything to do with Snowden's leak? They weren't even involved in publishing, were they? No, it was the Guardian. So they give Snowden a hand when he's in trouble and that means they're abusing poor Edward? These narratives don't make any sense.
[and yes, Assange may have been a bit undiplomatic by talking too much from the embassy - let's not blow this up to ridiculous - guests have been known to wear out their welcome, and that doesn't make them evil or anything - and certainly Assange has some trying depressing circumstances]
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 2:17pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 3:01pm
Artappraiser, good links, I like the description from one:
Gibney portrays Assange as a paranoid egotist with an obsessive need for control.
Only a fool could be blind to what this guy has done to his sources. Snowden's Dad isn't a fool.
by NCD on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 6:04pm
PRISM is the focus.Privacy is the issue. There is a raging debate about the Stop and Frisk program championed by NYC Mayor Bloomberg. A recent poll suggests that only 39% of NYC citizens support Stop and Frisk. 81% of NYC Blacks oppose the invasion of privacy. It is easy to understand a physical invasion of privacy but more difficult to understand an electronic invasion.
Stop and Frisk was marketed as a way of preventing crime.It was a concept that would be a precursor to the Pre-Crime organization in "Minority Report". If electronic invasion can somehow be linked to an image of physical invasion, there may be a larger public outcry.
Outside of actual victims that have been intimidated by PRISM or converting bytes into a threatening physical image, I don't see a great deal of vocal push back against PRISM developing.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 9:05pm
As predicted, little will actually happen in Congress.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 9:39pm
So it's back to Benghazi? Or the Great Tea Party IRS Brouhaha?
Oh, no, it's the GOP Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
by NCD on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 10:04pm
Glenn Greenwald is teasing a new story a bout a system that record and store 1 billion phones calls per day. I doubt that this story actually changes a lot. The government meme has been that they were not listening to or keeping track of phone calls. Whether the storage capability changes anything is unlikely. The public wants a flesh and blood victim of the NSA. The whistle-blowers are not getting much sympathy.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/29/2013 - 11:45am