More Wikileaks

In my last post I talked about WikiLeaks while the case was still rather new, and very fluid. Since then a lot has changed (however not my opinion) and in discussing it with people I’ve come to realize that while many people know the name WikiLeaks, they don’t understand what it is or how it works. In the 1970’s the media did a good job of understanding and explaining what Watergate was and how it worked. In 2010 the mainstream media seems to be just as clueless as the politicians who are trying to shut down what is basically a new form of press.
Also Julian Assange has been accused of “rape” (I’ll get to why that’s in quotes in a moment) which is obviously a serious crime.
I’m going to try to do the media’s job for them and explain some of the facts in this case and let anyone who reads this form their own opinions. Lets start with the rape accusation.
The crime that WikiLeaks founder is accused of isn’t rape in the traditional sense that we have here in the US. In fact as far as I know Sweden is the ONLY country where what he is being accused of is a crime. Basically if a couple has consensual relations but the man does not use some form of barrier protection (i.e. a condom) the woman has up to 72 hours to claim rape, even if at the time of intercourse she agreed to the lack of protection (as she admitted happened in this case.) The woman who accused Assange of this case brought the charges, dropped them, then talked to a number of politicians and brought them a second time, all within that 72 hour period. I’m not going to claim it was a setup, but there are a number of people who would.
Now as for what WikiLeaks is. People seem to have this image of the staff of WikiLeaks poking around in the Pentagon digging through their desk drawers for things to release. They’re not. Basically it’s a website where anyone can anonymously upload/”leak” documents that the uploader has access to for whatever reason. It would be the same as if I created a fake Facebook account and released my companies secrets there, it may be a crime for me to steal that company info, but Facebook didn’t do anything wrong.
WikiLeaks specifically, and the internet in general is the future of the press. To censor or block them is to deny that the citizens have a right to information (again we get back to those pesky amendments to the Constitution about freedom of speech and freedom of the press.) Other than one being on the screen and one being on paper how is a website different from a newspaper? What is the definition of a journalist? Am I one for keeping a blog or do I need X amount of readers? If it’s a matter of the number of readers what is that number? Are small community newspapers that don’t reach that number then not covered by freedom of the press?
Also ask yourself, if the information published by WikiLeaks wasn’t from the US, but from China or Iran would you have as big a problem? If a country is doing something wrong, even if it’s your country, shouldn’t we know about it? In 2009 WikiLeaks was the first to report about a serious nuclear accident in Iran, which was then picked up by major news outlets, similar to the way the Monica Lewinski case was first released by Matt Drudge on the internet and then only later picked up by news outlets. This is the future, and while WikiLeaks may have an anti-US agenda, they also have a right to free speech and since there is no law against publishing classified materials, only in leaking them in the first place, they are not guilty of any crime and have not been accused of any at this time.

WIKILeaks

I'm torn over Wikileaks. I don't like that they may have compromised this countries reputation, and possibly even hurt it at the negotiating table. HOWEVER, I fully support them in their pursuit of the truth wherever it leads. Reporters (in the classic, Radio, TV, Newspaper sense) used to do that. Lately I see mouthpieces for both sides of the political agenda and very little investigative reporting being done by the "professionals."

"The freedom of the press" isn't just a catchy slogan, what is being done to shut down a whole website because of what amounts to a series of articles being released is equal to if Nixon tried to shut down every newspaper that reported on Watergate. Investigate the leaker, not the messenger. Ask yourself, how would Stalin, Hitler, Castro, or Napolean have responded to someone printing something that reflected their governments in a poor light, do we really want to emulate them?

The Spec 4 that released this current bout of information could have gone to a newspaper, started his own website, written a book, or taken it directly to a foreign government. He would have gotten in trouble if caught, but only the website would have been shut down or stopped.

Months after the first round of leaks (remember we've been here before and survived?) Defense Secretary Gates, who originally said informants were being killed in Afganistan, stated "There has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."

So can we all please calm down with wanting the government to violate that whole pesky first amendment thing for a website and maybe remember that we are paying good money to go to the airport and get our fourth amendment violated? The latest there is agents are now being told to tell kids that the groping is a "game"

Loving Unemployment

This isn't intended as a brag post, but parts of it may read that way, I'm sorry and hope you're not offended.

I've been unemployed since August of 2009. This isn't that rare, millions of American's are like me. What is different is unlike most American families in this situation my family isn't in a financial crisis and worried each month that we are going to lose a car, the house, or not have enough food to eat.

Yes I do draw unemployment, but it is less than half of what I made before I lost my job. However we have never lived above our means, we don't have any credit cards or bills that come with them. Between my unemployment and what Heather makes doing daycare at home we can pay all our bills each month and have also been able to completely pay off a rather large outstanding balance to a local hospital.

During this time Heather has had a major surgery with a week off work and a miscarriage that made her miss a cumulative 2 weeks of daycare and yet we are still current on all our bills, and have credits on a few.

We've been able to do this mostly by being smart, but we've also become big fans of Dave Ramsey who advocates being debt free and how to get there. We haven't followed his plan exactly, we've bought Alex a new bike, we go out to eat occasionally, etc but between him and advice our parents gave growing up we're actually SHRINKING our debt while I'm spending time with my family and waiting for the right job.

Please don't misread that last line, I'm still working hard for work. However I'm presently looking almost exclusively in my chosen profession rather than having to take the first paycheck someone dangles in front of me simply to make ends meet. I have a deadline of 2 months before my unemployment runs out that I will then open myself wide up to any job I'm qualified for that will allow me to provide for my family. In the mean time I've been able to be home and shoulder the household tasks during Heather's two medical problems, I've spent lots of time playing with and enjoying my son, and I've gotten a lot done around the house (and thought of a lot more I'd like to do.) I'm enjoying my unemployment, however I'm ready to work if anyone has a job in my field.

Parent Ultimatums

I don't understand parents who give their grown children ultimatums. Mine never did, and while my son is only 4 I don't think I could ever do it.

I've been witnessing it 3rd hand however and while I'm only getting one side of the story the threats being made seem completely out of league.

Someone close to me has recently gotten engaged and his finance's parents don't approve of the engagement based (from what I've been told) solely on the couples age. They have stated she can't get student aid if married (untrue) and most recently that if they don't wait until they (the parents) approve they won't attend their daughter's wedding.

I realize parents want to protect their children, but at some point you have to recognize that they are their own person and have grown up. I was lucky in that both of my parents recognized they were raising a person not a baby and that their goals were to create an independent person able to make their own choices in life and take responsibilities for those choices even if they didn't necessarily approve of those choices.

The couple above has at least outwardly not let this dissuade them from their plans on a life together, but they do have a length of time between today and their wedding date that they will likely have to listen to a large dose of negativity the whole time. While this is a good test of the relationship, families in my opinion should say their piece and then if the choices aren't what they wanted they should move out of the way and support the course the individual is on rather than throwing up roadblocks every step of the way.

Watching this couple and the way they support each other and are facing this first of many challenges in their life, they have a strong relationship and I believe they will have a long and happy life together as long as they know that the only true opinion they have to care about is each others.

Because the couple will likely read this, and their families might I am not giving names, some people will know who I speak of, that's fine, I just ask that in the comments you don't name them and possibly cause more difficulties for them.