Anonymous and others start leaking

  On 12/16/2010 at 6:51 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 12:16 AM, Godwin Austen said:

Interesting points from both of you here. If democracy is, by its definition, people's consensual government, how this consensus can ever be achieved if the sole modus operandi is hidden away from people? Or by becoming more and more centralized?

 

I'm not saying that democracy as a system exists like it does in order to let anyone take advantage of it. It is the lack of transparency that does exactly that. The system has its flaws that must be optimized. I see this from the point where leading a country is to be a position with very carefully elected people. People who posess exceptional skills in various fields - or to form teams that cover various expertise in order to address as many challenges as possible. Not just the most adept talkers or enigmatic personas (or even show-biz ). There should be defined qualities of leaders put forward. Transparency then guards this stronghold of righteous agenda. The tendency to hide away from people allows some to keep powerfull positions even though they are never fully correspondant to it. And The Leaks show exactly that. People are in those positions out of personal agendas and rarely for the consensual people. There are ruthless people who decide - with lack of respect for other national entities, people who think high of themselves out of patriotic indoctrinations, rather than pursuing peacefull, constructive dialog.

 

I'm sure everyone will jump on here to shout "US is a republic, not a democracy." But anyway, there are many institutional rules that were created precisely to water down representative govt and the tyranny of the majority. The founding fathers were of course snobs, and wanted educated, landed gentry to run things. Point being there are many layers in the US govt between the "vox populi" and the folks running the show.

 

As for the other part of what you said, ironically you can make the opposite argument that longer term limits and a bit more secrecy prevents members of govt. (Senators for example) from having to pander to every interest group, become media whores, etc etc etc because they have more job security. Transparency really is a double-edged sword.

 

Like I said, I was only speaking to a specific arena, the diplomatic one. And yeah, in that sphere, I think secrecy (which sounds kind of pejorative; I'd say "privacy" or "closed door negotiation") is essential to prevent all the fucking idiots out there from going apeshit and blowing everything out of proportion.

For the most part I agree. I wasn't particularly aiming at the US, but more in general. I'm not so familiar with the US system, but in our country (Slovenia also considered as republic) things go like this:

Every four years there are local elections to vote for a representative in the Parliament. Candidates compete between each other to gain the most votes. In this process, many hopes are risen for a better change. Current (or old) problems get under the spotlight, hot debates enrole. I'm sure it's similar in other countries. But here, running for elections is a local 'king-of-the-hill' sport. As representatives finally get elected, no former promises are met. Those representatives usually sleep between parliament discussions, 3/4 are absent anyway. You don't see clash of opinions or hor discussions like in the English parliament for instance. Elected representatives usually enjoy high standard and benefits from their positions. Some are even lobbying to achieve their personal goals (buying land, getting their families employed, etc.)

My point being is that there is no legal aparatus to monitor the progress independantly. Once you're in 'the club' you are protected by diplomatic or immunity laws that prevent any legal process against them. This might be a local phenomenon here in Slovenia, but here is my point about the lack of democratic power which could hold them on a short leash - to ensure the promises for progress are being met.

I could go on and on with actual case-studies which I'm familiar with, which prove that the lack of transparency in certain areas of decision making is a great problem. Usually the small people get shot in the back, if you know what I mean.

  On 12/16/2010 at 2:20 PM, Godwin Austen said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 6:51 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 12:16 AM, Godwin Austen said:

Interesting points from both of you here. If democracy is, by its definition, people's consensual government, how this consensus can ever be achieved if the sole modus operandi is hidden away from people? Or by becoming more and more centralized?

 

I'm not saying that democracy as a system exists like it does in order to let anyone take advantage of it. It is the lack of transparency that does exactly that. The system has its flaws that must be optimized. I see this from the point where leading a country is to be a position with very carefully elected people. People who posess exceptional skills in various fields - or to form teams that cover various expertise in order to address as many challenges as possible. Not just the most adept talkers or enigmatic personas (or even show-biz ). There should be defined qualities of leaders put forward. Transparency then guards this stronghold of righteous agenda. The tendency to hide away from people allows some to keep powerfull positions even though they are never fully correspondant to it. And The Leaks show exactly that. People are in those positions out of personal agendas and rarely for the consensual people. There are ruthless people who decide - with lack of respect for other national entities, people who think high of themselves out of patriotic indoctrinations, rather than pursuing peacefull, constructive dialog.

 

I'm sure everyone will jump on here to shout "US is a republic, not a democracy." But anyway, there are many institutional rules that were created precisely to water down representative govt and the tyranny of the majority. The founding fathers were of course snobs, and wanted educated, landed gentry to run things. Point being there are many layers in the US govt between the "vox populi" and the folks running the show.

 

As for the other part of what you said, ironically you can make the opposite argument that longer term limits and a bit more secrecy prevents members of govt. (Senators for example) from having to pander to every interest group, become media whores, etc etc etc because they have more job security. Transparency really is a double-edged sword.

 

Like I said, I was only speaking to a specific arena, the diplomatic one. And yeah, in that sphere, I think secrecy (which sounds kind of pejorative; I'd say "privacy" or "closed door negotiation") is essential to prevent all the fucking idiots out there from going apeshit and blowing everything out of proportion.

 

For the most part I agree. I wasn't particularly aiming at the US, but more in general. I'm not so familiar with the US system, but in our country (Slovenia also considered as republic) things go like this:

Every four years there are local elections to vote for a representative in the Parliament. Candidates compete between each other to gain the most votes. In this process, many hopes are risen for a better change. Current (or old) problems get under the spotlight, hot debates enrole. I'm sure it's similar in other countries. But here, running for elections is a local 'king-of-the-hill' sport. As representatives finally get elected, no former promises are met. Those representatives usually sleep between parliament discussions, 3/4 are absent anyway. You don't see clash of opinions or hor discussions like in the English parliament for instance. Elected representatives usually enjoy high standard and benefits from their positions. Some are even lobbying to achieve their personal goals (buying land, getting their families employed, etc.)

 

My point being is that there is no legal aparatus to monitor the progress independently. Once you're in 'the club' you are protected by diplomatic or immunity laws that prevent any legal process against them. This might be a local phenomenon here in Slovenia, but here is my point about the lack of democratic power which could hold them on a short leash - to ensure the promises for progress are being met.

 

I could go on and on with actual case-studies which I'm familiar with, which prove that the lack of transparency in certain areas of decision making is a great problem. Usually the small people get shot in the back, if you know what I mean.

I agree with a lot of what is being said, but I do have to nitpick at the "rich, privileged white men" part of it. This goes back and sort of culminates with Charles Beard at the turn of the century, but he's only telling a half truth. If you look closely at a lot of their personal documents, and their public speeches, the idea of their privilege was to lead by example...with the radicalism of the republican experiment at the forefront, their job as the top class was to provide a benevolent or rather "enlightened paternalism"...every aspect of Washington's character, and certainly much of Madison and Jefferson's were based on this principle, so if they were lying to the public,they were certainly lying to themselves.

The idea was that eventually the public would become such a radically transformed and motivated populous upholding republicanism, that UNLESS the ruling class maintained and upheld a dignified, enlightened, knowledgeable and rational sense of character, they would be replaced by someone who would do it better...Jefferson and in many cases Paine said it should be done by force if need be. And a lot of that is transparency, maybe not in their words, but they certainly paint the same picture.

Just to clear that up, Gordon Wood, Carol Berkin, and others to an extent have challenged Beard's interpretation of those lads...not to say that there isn't some hypocrisy in what they were saying (Jefferson was well aware that successive generations would mock his unabashed hatred for slavery while at the same time owning a huge plantation). But to paint the broad brush that they didn't in some sense believe what they were saying has been trumped pretty badly by modern historians.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1012/S00156/who-is-behind-wikileaks.htm

this article is lovely + paranoid!~

  Quote

Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured dissent". It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation....

 

...

 

In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet.

  On 12/16/2010 at 6:51 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

 

As far as I can tell, Facebook has created a new form of networking throughout the entire globe. That's important.

but you do realize that Time got 10x more votes for Assange and purposefully side stepped him, right? sure you can make the argument that facebook is 'more important' than wikileaks, but you can't say that Time fairly chose the most popular person of the year.

I can't believe they put Mark Zuckerberg over me, The Unemployed American. outraeg!

What exactly did Mark accomplish this year with facebook? Seems like all that happened was a really good Fincher movie was released.

In the big picture though I dont really give a shit. Time has already proven their worthlessness with the article they did on Wikileaks last month.

i didn't think time could top the awful that was the mirror cover with YOU! as the person of the year.

welp.

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:30 PM, karmakramer said:

What exactly did Mark accomplish this year with facebook? Seems like all that happened was a really good Fincher movie was released.

in fairness, zuckerberg also donated half his fortune to charity this year.

but jesse eisenberg wouldve been a more realistic shout for man of the year than him

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:36 PM, kaini said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:30 PM, karmakramer said:

What exactly did Mark accomplish this year with facebook? Seems like all that happened was a really good Fincher movie was released.

 

in fairness, zuckerberg also donated half his fortune to charity this year.

but jesse eisenberg wouldve been a more realistic shout for man of the year than him

yeah but didn't he not do that until just a few days ago?

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:40 PM, disparaissant said:

yeah but didn't he not do that until just a few days ago?

nah, in september

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:36 PM, kaini said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:30 PM, karmakramer said:

What exactly did Mark accomplish this year with facebook? Seems like all that happened was a really good Fincher movie was released.

 

in fairness, zuckerberg also donated half his fortune to charity this year.

but jesse eisenberg wouldve been a more realistic shout for man of the year than him

Didn't George Lucas do this too? Man poor George! Forever alone!

nothing like a little no spin zone in the morning.

"Who cares"

Why do people watch news shows where the folks debating won't even wait to hear each other's thoughts? Why?

  On 12/16/2010 at 8:09 PM, luke viia said:

ows where the folks debating won't even wait to hear each other's thoughts? Why?

Cause they don't really want to hear other's thoughts...

Yeah, I know. Part of me just wished that people would avoid gathering their opinions from shouting contests...

Oh, and @ Smettingham: thanks for replying. I don't really feel qualified enough to have a discussion about the roots & ideals of democracy but I think I follow you. **reads up**

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:30 PM, karmakramer said:

Time has already proven their worthlessness with the article they did on Wikileaks last month.

The media will do its damnedest to downplay all of the Wikileaks coverage. It could genuinely stir up some shit if they pay it the proper attention.

  On 12/16/2010 at 8:23 PM, luke viia said:

Yeah, I know. Part of me just wished that people would avoid gathering their opinions from shouting contests...

 

Oh, and @ Smettingham: thanks for replying. I don't really feel qualified enough to have a discussion about the roots & ideals of democracy but I think I follow you. **reads up**

No problem, I think your harshness was necessary...I didn't really completely explain myself. Yes America is a republic, but republicanism IS based on democratic ideals...otherwise why would there be a vote at all?

America was seen as a great experiment by all involved, and I think many of them were incredibly unhappy with the results they saw before they passed on...the idea that the citizens would be led by example failed: examples of this are the Treason Trial and corruption/self interest of Aaron Burr, the rise corporatism despite Thomas Paine's multiple warnings against it, Jefferson and Adam's fear that the republic was simply a perverted monarchy, Madison realizing his over-cautious approach to the Constitution had been for naught, etc etc.

I think its too easy to paint these men as hypocrites, they were aware of their failings and what might happen to such an experiment...but part of me sincerely believes that they idealistically believed what they were constantly thinking about and speaking...and this debate over the right of government not to be transparent seems indicative of the frustrations they experienced in their later lives.

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:36 PM, kaini said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 7:30 PM, karmakramer said:

What exactly did Mark accomplish this year with facebook? Seems like all that happened was a really good Fincher movie was released.

 

in fairness, zuckerberg also donated half his fortune to charity this year.

 

Actually, Zucker"i'm not even gonna fix that"burger pledged to donate half of his fortune to charity at some point in the future.

  Quote

HarryHarrison’s inbox is full! He can’t receive messages!

goddammit

The following statement was released today, signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson; all are associated with Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

Excellent read:

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/12/07-13

More Daniel Ellsberg:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/from-the-pentagon-papers-to-wikileaks-daniel-ellsberg-calls-julian-assange-a-hero-20101216

awesome find. thanks for the link.

that second ellsberg piece is great. that guy is the shit.

  On 12/16/2010 at 9:32 PM, karmakramer said:

More Daniel Ellsberg:

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/from-the-pentagon-papers-to-wikileaks-daniel-ellsberg-calls-julian-assange-a-hero-20101216

  Quote

Neither of them are any more terrorists than I am, and I’m not.

I like the way he felt the need to clarify that.