You always ridiculed Assange because that is how he was presented to you. You argue about where journalists are 'allowed' to look. I argue about where journalists will look. They won't look where it's considered wrong to look, not because it is not strictly allowed. I'm on the move now and I can't expand on it but I believe I know a lot about how people's attention works. Chris Hedges points to other legal matters:
Under what law did Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno capriciously terminate Julian Assange’s rights of asylum as a political refugee? Under what law did Moreno authorize British police to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy—diplomatically sanctioned sovereign territory—to arrest a naturalized citizen of Ecuador? Under what law did Prime Minister Theresa May order the British police to grab Assange, who has never committed a crime? Under what law did President Donald Trump demand the extradition of Assange, who is not a U.S. citizen and whose news organization is not based in the United States?
So what you're defending right now is a situation where several countries conspire to skirt existing laws in order to bring Assange to court in the US for something he may well be innocent about (Greenwald for instance argues that Assange was only trying to help Manning avoid detection), but that doesn't matter because they'll come up with 10 new accusations against him once he's in the US.
As for what journalists can do, even a lot of mainstream journalists are now up in arms. You're far too limiting.
The character assassination started as soon as Wikileaks started doing real work. When wikileaks was sharing files with 5 major newspapers the NYTimes was already focusing more on his character than on the files. What this is now is an tightly coordinated transfer of Assange to the US, with the right legal cover everwhere(if you don't look closely). The US charges against him are designed to serve this purpose. Once they get a hold of him the charges will change. The ex president Correa is very explicitly condemning the pro-US course of the new president.
I half considered starting on that:) Of course now that you mention it is doesn't look right to use a weight of the tape accurate to a few percent and then calculate a result with 9 significant numbers ! Concerning the practicalities of implementation, if you'd actually start piling on the tapes then the maximum radius would likely never exceed the radius of the sun since at earth size most tapes would already be compressed to a few tonnes per cubic meter apart from a very thin shell . Also I don't think there will be any significant fusion providing counterpressure and stopping the collapse into a neutron star while you keep adding more tapes.
And Tannoy used to make broadcasting systems, hence the expression. Now they make high end speakers with special drivers, with the tweeter built right in the middle of the woofers which are up to 15 inch. Result is very good sound at low volume and excellent imaging overall.
It annoys me that after all these years that Assange was ridiculized for his claims that the US was after him, that finally gets arrested with a US warrant of extradition and instantly all this denial disappears and the US warrant is considered entirely justified and there is no problem at all with it. The issue at hand here is that this is an attack on the press, saying that whenever the press publishes something the government (or other players) disapprove of, they will find a way to get back at them. And that is how every journalist who investigates government business will understand it and will feel that their freedom of movement is shrinking fast. I know what it is to catch someone on a technicality and that is what this is. You can always say about a technicality that you're applying the law and the law should be applied. On the other hand if you want to catch someone you can always arrange it for such a technicality, or worse to turn up. As I said before, that is why under Obama they decided that this was a dangerous precedent. Maybe something can be made with the case of the password. The practice of requesting more information from leakers is entirely standard practice with any journalist who functions. Your vision of what a journalist should do is deeply flawed. I'm familiar with it, the impartial/objective neutralist journalist. It has done a lot of damage to the profession and it exists exactly to remove all the danger from journalists. There are good journalists who swear by it, but only because they don't see that they're actually doing something else. You want the journalist to be reliable and complete when he tells you what he is looking at. But a true neutral journalist looks where he is told to look and that makes him effectively neutered. And incidentally that is what most journalists are now, mere copywriters, mouthpieces and cheerleaders who teach you nothing about what is going on and make a big deal of red herrings like Russiagate. And if the case falls apart they deny all fault claiming they are just reporting and not involved othewise
I have a document here with Assanges version (2013) of the events leading up to his request for asylum in the embassy ( https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html... ) . The difference with 'what everyone knows' is remarkable. And how is that? Because your true journalism was not told to look at it.
Trying to look at star is also impossible because its surface masks everything underneath. And trying to look at a cup of coffee is also impossible because you're not really looking at the cup itself, just at the light which has reflected on it. I can turn it upside down too: a black hole can be observed even better than a star because it doesn't have its own light so you can see the impact it has on its surroundings without interference from the central light source. It's too much sophistry for me. You see a black hole because what it does with the things around it, and because you need a very busy place to create a big black hole you are going to see a lot of activity around it too once it's there.
That's a misunderstanding. It was not a dig on Trump. I mentioned trump because there is a large overlap between people who believe Assange works for the Russians and people who believe Trump works for the Russians. If it's a dig it's a dig on those people.And that 's a lot of people and most people on here. I have made my position clear before and I despise the whole collusion affair and I consider the fact that the Mueller commission has closed while indicting nobody for collusion vindicates me - to the extent that i deserve that. If you want my position on Trump: mostly despicable but showed some hopeful signs on political realism(realpolitik) on foreign affairs when he wanted to treat countries like North Korea and Russia as agents who have their own interests and whom you can talk with. Since then, has proven to be very malleable on foreign affairs front and overall very dangerous.
As a journalist, Assange must be a passive observer of the world, publishing information given to him. He shouldn't have any active role in obtaining the information.
Your depiction of the neutral and objective journalist is entirely that of the Tannoy. you put your message in on one side and it comes out the other. It becomes journalism as extension of power. And that is a head-on attack on the press as watchdog over power. Under Obama this event was known, and it was not used (despite their already aggressive anti-press stance) because it would endanger journalism ( https://theintercept.com/2018/... )
Theresa May has announced new plans, saying the era of self regulation is over - and it's for the children: https://www.facebook.com/10dow... We're entering a new era of censorship. It will be called 'not censorship, just...' as in just deranking, demonetizing, deplatforming, anti-hatespeech, anti-fake news. anti-russian-disinformation, anti-things-which-sow-dissent.
The combination of centralisation of power, surveillance, censorship , PR and secrecy has to go wrong , simply because independent of intent you're removing balancing factors out of the system.
You better think twice before denying. There are four billion dollar waiting for you ( https://www.enca.com/business/... ) to reward you for your good behavior. You're going to let all that pass you by?
The US has not requested extradition and will not.etc
You deserve to be rubbed with your nose in your own comment. Vigorously The US has requested extradition and the British used it as a reason for arrest. And that is exactly the reason why Assange jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy. That and his understanding of what the general plan was, 7 years sooner than you, and counting.
So you have an organisation which very reliably publishes information to the citizens about what its managers are doing. That's what actual journalism is about, not the stuff you see on CNN or MSNBC. So the managers tell you where to look instead: that Assange doesn't look after his cat. That he's a rapist and a bail jumper and a Russian stooge like Trump.For the rest nothing to see. This is an assault on the freedom of the press. The purpose of all the propaganda is to make you cheer it. And by God, that is what you're doing.
The pursuit of profit is one thing, but it thrives on the dehumanization of part of the population. If you want to measure the health of a society look at what they do to their prisoners.
82% of State and Federal prisons aren't private but they privatize their services. When government officials set rules which say 'outsource your stuff' then privatization is a large part of the problem even if your numbers claim otherwise.
It's like saying the military and the NSA are state organisations. They are outsourcing so much you can consider them privatized to a large extent. And I don't know how it is in the prison industry but in the military privatization numbers would still underestimate the impact of the industry because it doesn't include revolving door mechanisms. 10 years ago over 80% of the three and four star generals went straight to the defense industry. Now it's more. That meant that they were already covering the industry's interests during their military career but officially there was nothing privatized about what they were doing.
Slashdot Mirror
You always ridiculed Assange because that is how he was presented to you. You argue about where journalists are 'allowed' to look. I argue about where journalists will look. They won't look where it's considered wrong to look, not because it is not strictly allowed. I'm on the move now and I can't expand on it but I believe I know a lot about how people's attention works. :
Chris Hedges points to other legal matters
So what you're defending right now is a situation where several countries conspire to skirt existing laws in order to bring Assange to court in the US for something he may well be innocent about (Greenwald for instance argues that Assange was only trying to help Manning avoid detection), but that doesn't matter because they'll come up with 10 new accusations against him once he's in the US.
As for what journalists can do, even a lot of mainstream journalists are now up in arms. You're far too limiting.
The character assassination started as soon as Wikileaks started doing real work. When wikileaks was sharing files with 5 major newspapers the NYTimes was already focusing more on his character than on the files.
What this is now is an tightly coordinated transfer of Assange to the US, with the right legal cover everwhere(if you don't look closely). The US charges against him are designed to serve this purpose. Once they get a hold of him the charges will change.
The ex president Correa is very explicitly condemning the pro-US course of the new president.
just ask Google , they'll have enough to spare.
I half considered starting on that :)
Of course now that you mention it is doesn't look right to use a weight of the tape accurate to a few percent and then calculate a result with 9 significant numbers !
Concerning the practicalities of implementation, if you'd actually start piling on the tapes then the maximum radius would likely never exceed the radius of the sun since at earth size most tapes would already be compressed to a few tonnes per cubic meter apart from a very thin shell . Also I don't think there will be any significant fusion providing counterpressure and stopping the collapse into a neutron star while you keep adding more tapes.
And Tannoy used to make broadcasting systems, hence the expression. Now they make high end speakers with special drivers, with the tweeter built right in the middle of the woofers which are up to 15 inch. Result is very good sound at low volume and excellent imaging overall.
Just aksing, you know...
It annoys me that after all these years that Assange was ridiculized for his claims that the US was after him, that finally gets arrested with a US warrant of extradition and instantly all this denial disappears and the US warrant is considered entirely justified and there is no problem at all with it. The issue at hand here is that this is an attack on the press, saying that whenever the press publishes something the government (or other players) disapprove of, they will find a way to get back at them. And that is how every journalist who investigates government business will understand it and will feel that their freedom of movement is shrinking fast.
I know what it is to catch someone on a technicality and that is what this is. You can always say about a technicality that you're applying the law and the law should be applied. On the other hand if you want to catch someone you can always arrange it for such a technicality, or worse to turn up. As I said before, that is why under Obama they decided that this was a dangerous precedent. Maybe something can be made with the case of the password. The practice of requesting more information from leakers is entirely standard practice with any journalist who functions.
Your vision of what a journalist should do is deeply flawed. I'm familiar with it, the impartial/objective neutralist journalist. It has done a lot of damage to the profession and it exists exactly to remove all the danger from journalists. There are good journalists who swear by it, but only because they don't see that they're actually doing something else. You want the journalist to be reliable and complete when he tells you what he is looking at. But a true neutral journalist looks where he is told to look and that makes him effectively neutered. And incidentally that is what most journalists are now, mere copywriters, mouthpieces and cheerleaders who teach you nothing about what is going on and make a big deal of red herrings like Russiagate. And if the case falls apart they deny all fault claiming they are just reporting and not involved othewise
I have a document here with Assanges version (2013) of the events leading up to his request for asylum in the embassy ( https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html... ) . The difference with 'what everyone knows' is remarkable. And how is that? Because your true journalism was not told to look at it.
How many tapes do you need before the station wagon collapses into itself into a black hole?
Trying to look at star is also impossible because its surface masks everything underneath. And trying to look at a cup of coffee is also impossible because you're not really looking at the cup itself, just at the light which has reflected on it.
I can turn it upside down too: a black hole can be observed even better than a star because it doesn't have its own light so you can see the impact it has on its surroundings without interference from the central light source.
It's too much sophistry for me. You see a black hole because what it does with the things around it, and because you need a very busy place to create a big black hole you are going to see a lot of activity around it too once it's there.
Everyone knows the cats of this world are the real overlords who are pulling the strings.
My cat certainly pulls a lot of strings.
That's a misunderstanding. It was not a dig on Trump. I mentioned trump because there is a large overlap between people who believe Assange works for the Russians and people who believe Trump works for the Russians. If it's a dig it's a dig on those people.And that 's a lot of people and most people on here.
I have made my position clear before and I despise the whole collusion affair and I consider the fact that the Mueller commission has closed while indicting nobody for collusion vindicates me - to the extent that i deserve that.
If you want my position on Trump: mostly despicable but showed some hopeful signs on political realism(realpolitik) on foreign affairs when he wanted to treat countries like North Korea and Russia as agents who have their own interests and whom you can talk with. Since then, has proven to be very malleable on foreign affairs front and overall very dangerous.
Also, pretty chuffed that I got the word Tannoy in there.
Your depiction of the neutral and objective journalist is entirely that of the Tannoy. you put your message in on one side and it comes out the other. It becomes journalism as extension of power. And that is a head-on attack on the press as watchdog over power.
Under Obama this event was known, and it was not used (despite their already aggressive anti-press stance) because it would endanger journalism ( https://theintercept.com/2018/... )
Theresa May has announced new plans, saying the era of self regulation is over - and it's for the children: ...'
https://www.facebook.com/10dow...
We're entering a new era of censorship. It will be called 'not censorship, just
as in just deranking, demonetizing, deplatforming, anti-hatespeech, anti-fake news. anti-russian-disinformation, anti-things-which-sow-dissent.
The combination of centralisation of power, surveillance, censorship , PR and secrecy has to go wrong , simply because independent of intent you're removing balancing factors out of the system.
They do like to wrap it in official stamps though:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-e...
Sweden is interested in Assange because other people request them to be interested
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
You better think twice before denying. There are four billion dollar waiting for you ( https://www.enca.com/business/... )
to reward you for your good behavior. You're going to let all that pass you by?
You deserve to be rubbed with your nose in your own comment. Vigorously The US has requested extradition and the British used it as a reason for arrest. And that is exactly the reason why Assange jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy. That and his understanding of what the general plan was, 7 years sooner than you, and counting.
So you have an organisation which very reliably publishes information to the citizens about what its managers are doing. That's what actual journalism is about, not the stuff you see on CNN or MSNBC.
So the managers tell you where to look instead: that Assange doesn't look after his cat. That he's a rapist and a bail jumper and a Russian stooge like Trump.For the rest nothing to see.
This is an assault on the freedom of the press. The purpose of all the propaganda is to make you cheer it. And by God, that is what you're doing.
A costconscious prison outsources part of its tasks to gangs. They get to live a fairly good life while keeping the order.
Most blacks vote democrat so lock them up as much as you can to strip them from their right to vote.
That's an interesting angle actually.
The pursuit of profit is one thing, but it thrives on the dehumanization of part of the population. If you want to measure the health of a society look at what they do to their prisoners.
simultaneously. The total percentage of people who have spent time in jail is much larger
82% of State and Federal prisons aren't private but they privatize their services. When government officials set rules which say 'outsource your stuff' then privatization is a large part of the problem even if your numbers claim otherwise.
It's like saying the military and the NSA are state organisations. They are outsourcing so much you can consider them privatized to a large extent. And I don't know how it is in the prison industry but in the military privatization numbers would still underestimate the impact of the industry because it doesn't include revolving door mechanisms. 10 years ago over 80% of the three and four star generals went straight to the defense industry. Now it's more. That meant that they were already covering the industry's interests during their military career but officially there was nothing privatized about what they were doing.