As a point of fact, we are. This Manning/Wikileaks situation will define government, journalism, and the very nature of secrecy for generations to come. We are entitled to know all the details, all the facts, everything about what is happening so we might make the right decisions NOW - when they matter. This is not a matter for historians. This is a matter for all participants in democracy.
And people called me crazy and a nut when I said "A government run by the people and for the people should not be allowed to keep secrets from the people"
This!
I suggest an Amendment that requires every single government agent to behave as though under oath whenever they are 'on the clock'. Every single statement made, every document filed, every everything is subject to the identical metrics and penalties as carried under perjury.
That's all we want, documents. Too many people lying. We want evidence, of which there is lots, all hidden. That's what everyone wants, and what Wikileaks gives.
Indeed. And in fact there's much support for this in the law already. Things like FOIA and the Presidential Records Act echo this exact same sentiment. The one advantage Wikileaks has is timeliness. Could you imagine how different our culture might be if Watergate were suppressed by the government? We the people can no longer believe that the government is able to be trusted. We must now demand access to the records, and the ledgers, and the Oval Office recordings.
And if you're in the employ of the government and you don't like being distrusted? Quit. A decent citizen who believes in democracy will fill your spot, I am certain.
Undercover cops and witness protection programs are tools of the lazy and the weak. We enforced the law long before these concepts were invented and could continue to do so without them. Here's an idea, how's about making your case without deception and entrapment? Or what of protecting people who testify by successfully jailing all those criminal elements who seek to do them harm? The very fact that we cannot make cases without infiltrating and cannot protect witnesses who come forward and do the right thing is a symptom of a much larger problem. Yet so long as we use these tools of secrecy we can ignore diligence and just keep being lazy.
The timings and routes of nuclear shipments should be secured enough so that you can list them on a.gov web page without fear of anything interfering. Relying on secrets to keep these things safe is the same as putting a password on a stick note. Just plain stupid.
Remember the Navajo Code Talkers? Conversing right out in the open, without the benefit of fancy encryption. Even the enigma machine was assumed to be compromised from time to time, and changing the wheels around was part of the design. Today one leak or software flaw means YEARS of decrypting power. Our grandfathers didn't have the luxury, but we whine about it being removed. Because we're basically brats spoiled by our technologies.
When you blur the line between governments, which do not have rights, to people, who do have rights, you're conflating two distinctly different things. Wikileaks didn't publish photos of Bret's penis or Tiger's voicemails. The media does that. Let's try and keep our topics separate.
Bauxite? How is this different from nuclear materials? Are you padding your list for length or what?
A government out in the sunlight can be done. It is decidedly different from what we're doing today and it WILL require more effort. But to decry it as impossible is just plain sad.
They could be the embodiment of Christ himself by measurement of their good works and it would still be wrong for them to succumb to external pressure from their owners or the government.
The Pentagon Papers...revealed official wrongdoing or, at the least, a pervasive lack of candor by the government to its people.
WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret.
and
Taken as a whole, however, a leak of this elephantine magnitude, which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S., is difficult to defend on any basis other than WikiLeaks' general disdain for any secrecy at all.
This premise is flawed. The government's misconduct is clear - they have systematically lied to the people. We're supposed to be a democracy, and that quite simply IS NOT POSSIBLE without the truth. The quicker we all come to grips with this fact the better.
If you'd like to scientifically measure my connection to God, then I suggest you bring along better science. Just because you lack the skill to measure it doesn't make it invalid. Science is a work in progress, or at least it was until we decided to make it into a new religion.
you are welcome to believe whatever you wish so long as it is accepted that there is no rational basis for the faith
Were you to put my hand into flame would it be irrational for me to withdraw it in pain? Because I'd find it equally irrational to deny myself belief in this thing that I can emphatically feel within my life just because you insist that I do so. Don't you think that I realize that I'm on slashdot here? I'm literally wading deep into the nerdy lion's den of antitheists. Why would I do that if I were not somehow compelled?
Jesus H Christ but you guys hate that movie. Why not simply say "I cannot have a discussion yet, I'm still far to busy hating that movie to have clear patterns of thought"?
It would save us all a LOT of time.
But no, you're still so clouded with nerd rage that you cannot tell the difference in the scientist roles of Avatar and Jurassic Park.
Everyone's a sinner, but not every mistake is a sin.
Christ was indeed a rebel, no doubt. But in the end, he submitted himself to be crucified at the hands of the Romans. If he were the Rambo type, I suppose he'd have busted out a jaw-bone and killed them all.
I'd guess the final test would be:
Does love include armed rebellion? Can you love someone while you're murdering them?
Probably not.
I do find it amusing that you'd have trouble picturing Christ as turning the other cheek, even to the Nazis.
And are you willing to give that thought as much credit as you do to the existence of god? I thought not.
I absolutely do give that much thought to the existence of God. Daily. Some people are non-thinking sheep, but not all.
The problem here is that you seem to have come ready to defend your religion by attacking mine, and are making assumptions along the way. I wonder constantly if what I'm feeling is genuine, for a multitude of reasons. A Christian doubts whether the impulses he feels are his, or the work of God, or the temptations of Satan - regularly. To assert that such a person has never considered that God actually doesn't exist means you genuinely have no idea who or what you're talking about. The hand of God is subtle, otherwise there'd be no exercise of free will, and what then would be the point of life?
People who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. It is therefore up to them to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.
Here's my evidence: I pray and things happen.
I realize that you're ready to attack that assertion, but unfortunately you don't have anything better than this to rebut it. He's real. Is he some bearded white dude in the sky? Probably not. But there's no doubt that I am interfacing with some power far greater than myself. None. Why? Because I practice it regularly. I feel it as surely as I feel the cold air when I step outside in the morning. The fact that you do not recognize that same feeling fills me with sadness, but I do respect your choice. And I believe that God does as well.
Such as believing you are in a romulan holodeck would be, as is believing in god.
It is either madness, if it is false, or enlightenment if it is true. In either case.
I don't think it was a haystack, though. Just a small pile of needles. I don't genuinely believe that security on that intel is SO BAD that anyone can walk out with it...
Well, it certainly is enough to demand full disclosure. To COMPELL it, no. But we've met the standard to insist on either disclosure or at least some relevant detail.
He hasn't even gone so far as to claim there are other sources at risk...
"nigger" is in fact racist, and saying that word gets people fired to this very day.
So in that way, your analysis is correct. Backwards-minded people who use certain words a lot are not offended by them. This does not mean that they are never offensive.
Do you think we learned more about the universe since the Age of Enlightenment, or is all the time of history before then?
This is rather my concern. During a short period where scientific thought was free to operate, as the underdog if you will, we thrived. That age has passed, and we're now transitioning into a new dark age.
If more people "believed" in evolution, the world would be a better place. If more people believed in creationism (or ID), the world would be a worse place, because in practice, people's beliefs tend to affect how those people interact in meaningful ways with their neighbors (e.g. by voting on school board members).
Please cite the scientific study you have done to support this belief-based conclusion.
There's a significant difference between saying a drug should be illegal because of various costs it imposes on society (e.g. deaths, health care costs, unemployment, etc.) and saying the drug should be illegal because God said so.
You do realize that Christianity makes no such claims, yes? The church certainly does, but even PAT ROBERTS argued for the legalization of pot just the other day.
It is easy to attack something as nuanced as an entire religion, but I'm confident that you can do better if you try.
Science doesn't start off assuming to know the Truth. It builds up to it. And academic blacklisting and political squabbles notwithstanding, the correct idea wins in the end.
That's certainly an unfair standard. Science has not only claimed the mantle of truth, but events like climategate have proven that the 'squabbles' actually suppress it. Diligently, actively suppress the truth of the data in order to further an agenda. Did you see the study put out by NASA that demonstrated that we simply cannot kill ourselves with carbon? That was science, too, but even here on science-loving slashdot it was shouted down as heresy. What about the study on studies that proved many if not all were deeply flawed, and were simply pushed towards publication rather than any actual diligent scientific effort?
I'll grant that not every scientist worships at this altar, but many if not most do. Certainly the ones dictating the consensus do. What was once the underdog is now becoming the church-dejour, and it is a sad, sad thing.
Actually, we disagree. If a true Christian organization felt it's people needed coffee, they'd provide it to any and all who asked for it. There would be no store involved.
The fact that it exists as a profit entity is not as much a superficial as it is a symptom.
I believe it all to be incredibly unlikely. So at least in that way we agree.
I feel the likelihood that the chat logs would expose any as-yet unknown sources is far, far, far less than the likelihood that they would not. In so much that I do not believe that this tiny possibility would mean that they should remain undisclosed.
I also notice that children are taught that Santa Claus is a myth at around the age of 4-8. Why only Santa and not other mythological beings? At least be fucking consistent.
It is that every kid with an IQ of 90 or more is told that they can be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist
Who is telling them that? Last I checked, we were telling our children that they should aspire to be either businessmen or celebrities.
Guidance counselors are telling them that from Junior High. They're telling them to go to college. Then when they get to college and want to study 'underwater basket weaving', the colleges aren't kicking them out, they're actually offering PhD's in it.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, you're entitled to that.
As a point of fact, we are. This Manning/Wikileaks situation will define government, journalism, and the very nature of secrecy for generations to come. We are entitled to know all the details, all the facts, everything about what is happening so we might make the right decisions NOW - when they matter. This is not a matter for historians. This is a matter for all participants in democracy.
It's kind of a big deal.
And people called me crazy and a nut when I said "A government run by the people and for the people should not be allowed to keep secrets from the people"
This!
I suggest an Amendment that requires every single government agent to behave as though under oath whenever they are 'on the clock'. Every single statement made, every document filed, every everything is subject to the identical metrics and penalties as carried under perjury.
Let's end the lies, shall we?
That's all we want, documents. Too many people lying. We want evidence, of which there is lots, all hidden. That's what everyone wants, and what Wikileaks gives.
Indeed. And in fact there's much support for this in the law already. Things like FOIA and the Presidential Records Act echo this exact same sentiment. The one advantage Wikileaks has is timeliness. Could you imagine how different our culture might be if Watergate were suppressed by the government? We the people can no longer believe that the government is able to be trusted. We must now demand access to the records, and the ledgers, and the Oval Office recordings.
And if you're in the employ of the government and you don't like being distrusted? Quit. A decent citizen who believes in democracy will fill your spot, I am certain.
Undercover cops and witness protection programs are tools of the lazy and the weak. We enforced the law long before these concepts were invented and could continue to do so without them. Here's an idea, how's about making your case without deception and entrapment? Or what of protecting people who testify by successfully jailing all those criminal elements who seek to do them harm? The very fact that we cannot make cases without infiltrating and cannot protect witnesses who come forward and do the right thing is a symptom of a much larger problem. Yet so long as we use these tools of secrecy we can ignore diligence and just keep being lazy.
The timings and routes of nuclear shipments should be secured enough so that you can list them on a .gov web page without fear of anything interfering. Relying on secrets to keep these things safe is the same as putting a password on a stick note. Just plain stupid.
Remember the Navajo Code Talkers? Conversing right out in the open, without the benefit of fancy encryption. Even the enigma machine was assumed to be compromised from time to time, and changing the wheels around was part of the design. Today one leak or software flaw means YEARS of decrypting power. Our grandfathers didn't have the luxury, but we whine about it being removed. Because we're basically brats spoiled by our technologies.
When you blur the line between governments, which do not have rights, to people, who do have rights, you're conflating two distinctly different things. Wikileaks didn't publish photos of Bret's penis or Tiger's voicemails. The media does that. Let's try and keep our topics separate.
Bauxite? How is this different from nuclear materials? Are you padding your list for length or what?
A government out in the sunlight can be done. It is decidedly different from what we're doing today and it WILL require more effort. But to decry it as impossible is just plain sad.
They could be the embodiment of Christ himself by measurement of their good works and it would still be wrong for them to succumb to external pressure from their owners or the government.
From TFA
The Pentagon Papers...revealed official wrongdoing or, at the least, a pervasive lack of candor by the government to its people.
WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret.
and
Taken as a whole, however, a leak of this elephantine magnitude, which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S., is difficult to defend on any basis other than WikiLeaks' general disdain for any secrecy at all.
This premise is flawed. The government's misconduct is clear - they have systematically lied to the people. We're supposed to be a democracy, and that quite simply IS NOT POSSIBLE without the truth. The quicker we all come to grips with this fact the better.
If you'd like to scientifically measure my connection to God, then I suggest you bring along better science. Just because you lack the skill to measure it doesn't make it invalid. Science is a work in progress, or at least it was until we decided to make it into a new religion.
you are welcome to believe whatever you wish so long as it is accepted that there is no rational basis for the faith
Were you to put my hand into flame would it be irrational for me to withdraw it in pain? Because I'd find it equally irrational to deny myself belief in this thing that I can emphatically feel within my life just because you insist that I do so. Don't you think that I realize that I'm on slashdot here? I'm literally wading deep into the nerdy lion's den of antitheists. Why would I do that if I were not somehow compelled?
Jesus H Christ but you guys hate that movie. Why not simply say "I cannot have a discussion yet, I'm still far to busy hating that movie to have clear patterns of thought"?
It would save us all a LOT of time.
But no, you're still so clouded with nerd rage that you cannot tell the difference in the scientist roles of Avatar and Jurassic Park.
Everyone's a sinner, but not every mistake is a sin.
Christ was indeed a rebel, no doubt. But in the end, he submitted himself to be crucified at the hands of the Romans. If he were the Rambo type, I suppose he'd have busted out a jaw-bone and killed them all.
I'd guess the final test would be:
Does love include armed rebellion? Can you love someone while you're murdering them?
Probably not.
I do find it amusing that you'd have trouble picturing Christ as turning the other cheek, even to the Nazis.
And are you willing to give that thought as much credit as you do to the existence of god? I thought not.
I absolutely do give that much thought to the existence of God. Daily. Some people are non-thinking sheep, but not all.
The problem here is that you seem to have come ready to defend your religion by attacking mine, and are making assumptions along the way. I wonder constantly if what I'm feeling is genuine, for a multitude of reasons. A Christian doubts whether the impulses he feels are his, or the work of God, or the temptations of Satan - regularly. To assert that such a person has never considered that God actually doesn't exist means you genuinely have no idea who or what you're talking about. The hand of God is subtle, otherwise there'd be no exercise of free will, and what then would be the point of life?
People who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. It is therefore up to them to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.
Here's my evidence: I pray and things happen.
I realize that you're ready to attack that assertion, but unfortunately you don't have anything better than this to rebut it. He's real. Is he some bearded white dude in the sky? Probably not. But there's no doubt that I am interfacing with some power far greater than myself. None. Why? Because I practice it regularly. I feel it as surely as I feel the cold air when I step outside in the morning. The fact that you do not recognize that same feeling fills me with sadness, but I do respect your choice. And I believe that God does as well.
Such as believing you are in a romulan holodeck would be, as is believing in god.
It is either madness, if it is false, or enlightenment if it is true. In either case.
However, in both cases, why do you even care?
Didn't he flunk Math?
Since your empathy extends to pity, then certainly you're able to exhibit good taste and encourage others to do so?
TFA: It is the emotion that matters.
I don't think it was a haystack, though. Just a small pile of needles. I don't genuinely believe that security on that intel is SO BAD that anyone can walk out with it...
Well, it certainly is enough to demand full disclosure. To COMPELL it, no. But we've met the standard to insist on either disclosure or at least some relevant detail.
He hasn't even gone so far as to claim there are other sources at risk...
If you're going to rebut not reading by not reading, why bother?
The EMOTION is all that matters. RTFA!!
"nigger" is in fact racist, and saying that word gets people fired to this very day.
So in that way, your analysis is correct. Backwards-minded people who use certain words a lot are not offended by them. This does not mean that they are never offensive.
Do you think we learned more about the universe since the Age of Enlightenment, or is all the time of history before then?
This is rather my concern. During a short period where scientific thought was free to operate, as the underdog if you will, we thrived. That age has passed, and we're now transitioning into a new dark age.
Again, all clearly labeled as suspicion rather than fact. Or at least this was my intent.
If more people "believed" in evolution, the world would be a better place. If more people believed in creationism (or ID), the world would be a worse place, because in practice, people's beliefs tend to affect how those people interact in meaningful ways with their neighbors (e.g. by voting on school board members).
Please cite the scientific study you have done to support this belief-based conclusion.
There's a significant difference between saying a drug should be illegal because of various costs it imposes on society (e.g. deaths, health care costs, unemployment, etc.) and saying the drug should be illegal because God said so.
You do realize that Christianity makes no such claims, yes? The church certainly does, but even PAT ROBERTS argued for the legalization of pot just the other day.
It is easy to attack something as nuanced as an entire religion, but I'm confident that you can do better if you try.
Science doesn't start off assuming to know the Truth. It builds up to it. And academic blacklisting and political squabbles notwithstanding, the correct idea wins in the end.
That's certainly an unfair standard. Science has not only claimed the mantle of truth, but events like climategate have proven that the 'squabbles' actually suppress it. Diligently, actively suppress the truth of the data in order to further an agenda. Did you see the study put out by NASA that demonstrated that we simply cannot kill ourselves with carbon? That was science, too, but even here on science-loving slashdot it was shouted down as heresy. What about the study on studies that proved many if not all were deeply flawed, and were simply pushed towards publication rather than any actual diligent scientific effort?
I'll grant that not every scientist worships at this altar, but many if not most do. Certainly the ones dictating the consensus do. What was once the underdog is now becoming the church-dejour, and it is a sad, sad thing.
Actually, we disagree. If a true Christian organization felt it's people needed coffee, they'd provide it to any and all who asked for it. There would be no store involved.
The fact that it exists as a profit entity is not as much a superficial as it is a symptom.
I think the point would be that to attempt to resolve the notion of 'marriage' in a modern context, one would need to look at the history behind it.
I believe it all to be incredibly unlikely. So at least in that way we agree.
I feel the likelihood that the chat logs would expose any as-yet unknown sources is far, far, far less than the likelihood that they would not. In so much that I do not believe that this tiny possibility would mean that they should remain undisclosed.
I also notice that children are taught that Santa Claus is a myth at around the age of 4-8. Why only Santa and not other mythological beings? At least be fucking consistent.
Lead the way...
It is that every kid with an IQ of 90 or more is told that they can be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist
Who is telling them that? Last I checked, we were telling our children that they should aspire to be either businessmen or celebrities.
Guidance counselors are telling them that from Junior High. They're telling them to go to college. Then when they get to college and want to study 'underwater basket weaving', the colleges aren't kicking them out, they're actually offering PhD's in it.