How about Gen. Patton? Can we agree that Patton is more authoritative?
George Patton said: "Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash."
Rommel having been on the losing side doesn't make the principle any less relevant, and didn't render him incapable of articulating it, even if he eventually lost.
But since you're keeping score, Patton was most definitely on the winning side, and seems to have agreed with Gen. Rommel's sentiment.
Are you joking? I'm the guy saying that Assange has been implying it's the CIA all along, but now he wants to change the argument from "I'm the victim of a smear," to "I never said the word 'CIA'!"
Do try to keep up. You might even find you agree with me.
You've got a point here, but your line items aren't really as incredible as you might suggest.
I didn't say they were impossible, I said the existence of all of these elements, in concert with one another, is a lot less likely to be the case than "guy acts like jerk, girl gets pissed and goes to police."
The person citing Occam's razor as support for the conspiracy theory below is amazing to me, when a simple "guy pisses off girl" scenario is much more likely (and doesn't require the presence, cooperation, and silence of quite a few other people to work).
No, it's really not a stretch, given the context of the discussion - namely that Assange's organization leaked classified documents pertaining to operations of the US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan & Iraq.
There is NO other reasonable conclusion that people would draw from his statements, which strongly implied (but did not state outright) that the CIA and other US agencies were behind this "smear campaign".
Why could he not be implying the Swedish government for example - it has a lot to lose from the Afghan War Diaries as well, and he was in Sweden at the time
Yeah, totally makes sense that, after receiving a warning that "the government of Sweden is out to get you," you'd... go to Sweden. He would've been better off coming here to the US, I suppose, since he had no reason to fear that the US would try dirty tricks against him.
I'm well aware that many other countries have troops over there. But let's be fully, brutally honest - the US has "the most" to lose in Afghanistan. Sweden has ~550 troops there, and that's the 16th largest contingent, according to this info.
Here, I'll quote back the relevant part of my post you're ignoring:
issued in the context of the news coverage over wikileaks' publication of the Afghan War Diaries?
Are we supposed to believe that the Australian intelligence service was warning him that Nigeria was plotting dirty tricks against him, for not helping them smuggle $10 million USD out of the country by providing a bank account number to the son of their former finance minister?
Or that they had reason to believe 2 girls in Sweden who he had not met yet were plotting his eventual downfall?
Yes, it's intellectual dishonesty to pretend that "The CIA / US Government" is not *exactly* what he meant when he claimed it was a smear campaign. Look at the posts here in support of him - the overwhelming majority of his supporters have CLEARLY drawn that same conclusion.
So, as I said, he didn't specifically utter the words "CIA" - but in the context in which these statements & implications were made, there is no escaping the conclusion that that is exactly what he *meant*. Of course he can distract us now by saying "I NEVER SAID THAT! PROVE THAT I SAID THE WORDS CIA!" Which is, frankly, a geek's argument of last resort, and you see it here all the time on Slashdot - derail the discussion by arguing about the literal content of the message, while ignoring the context & implications that were most certainly intended.
Sure, it could be a CIA plot, but he's specifically disavowing making that allegation, so clearly he has no evidence that it is.
Lacking evidence that it's a CIA plot, it's just as likely the story plays out like this:
A guy goes 39 years without amounting to much more than a hacking charge. And then suddenly he gets his 15 minutes of fame by embarrassing the world's most powerful government, and has his face plastered all over newspapers around the world. Suddenly he starts feeling pretty powerful - people say he's a hero, people want to hear him talk, people care about what he has to say - hell, some girls are even throwing themselves at him! So maybe he gets a little overzealous, or starts feeling overly entitled, because after all, he's *important* - and behaves like a jerk and pressures a girl into doing something she didn't really want to do. Or maybe he just pisses off the wrong girl by not calling her, and she decides to start a little smear campaign of her own.
I mean, since we're speculating without evidence, that story reads as far more likely to me than it being a CIA smear campaign, since the smear campaign would require: -- the 2 girls to be in the service of the CIA; -- Most of the world media to be dupes of the CIA; -- The entire criminal justice system of Sweden to be easily manipulated by the US; -- an Icelandic MP (and ardent supporter of Wikileaks) to suddenly be in the employ of the CIA; AND, the kicker: -- That the bumbling organization that can't keep PFC Manning from stealing all its data is simultaneously capable of pulling off a black op of this scope just to discredit the guy, rather than simply making him have an accident, and eliminating the problem.
He's never claimed it was the CIA in much the same way that Fox News "never claims" stuff - you say it in every way you can except the one you want to be able to deny, and then you try to shift the argument so it's about your "word choice" rather than the intent of your statements.
"We were warned on the 11th by Australian intelligence that we should expect this sort of thing. We were warned about dirty tricks and specifically that they would be of a type like this.” "Assange, who is Australian by birth, told WikiLeaks' Twitter page the charges were 'without basis' and that their timing was 'deeply disturbing.'" "We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one."
What conclusion does he expect everybody to draw with these statements, issued in the context of the news coverage over wikileaks' publication of the Afghan War Diaries? Obviously, that these charges are part of a smear campaign against him, orchestrated by the US government, and that these allegations were the first "dirty trick" to be used as part of that campaign.
To now backpedal and shift the focus onto a question of word choice is disingenuous at best, and absolutely intellectually dishonest. He never specifically uttered the word "CIA," no. But every single statement he's issued since the charges came up has screamed "It's a smear campaign by the US government."
So... men are smart enough to be elected to office and keep themselves in power... but so dumb that they're trivially manipulated into "constructing a reality" for females (their wives and girlfriends) that is actively hostile to the men putting the laws in place?
Wait, wait - is "free thinker" code for "no proof or substantiation of allegations required?"
Perhaps you could try making a point rather than engaging in name-calling & rhetoric that is clearly FUD in an effort - a failing effort, that is - to sound clever?
Mathematical news flash: 10% unemployment means 90% employment. Yes, unemployment is high. Comparative to the average, IT workers are running ~6% unemployment - they're doing much better than the average. Given that we are not seeing millions of people graduating college and then immediately going on welfare, your argument fails.
People ARE finding a job, and not every company that wants to hire a senator's daughter is going to find one. I am in the job market right now, and it seems as robust as it's ever really been. I also see plenty of new hires coming on board right out of college - based primarily on their skills, not on who they know. I'm not aware of any senators' daughters in the group, but I am aware of several kids who impressed me as being awfully bright and motivated during our interviews.
Is it "easier" to get a job with connections to a particular company? Sure. But most people don't have connections to a senator, and most (remember - 90% employment!) people are still finding a job, despite your unsubstantiated claims.
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, she's not suggesting he quit and sever ties with Wikileaks. She's suggesting he step aside and let somebody else handle the day-to-day Wikileaks gig while he focuses on dealing with his legal issues. It's called a leave of absence, and it happens ALL. THE. TIME. in cases like this, where somebody in a role of leadership / responsibility is accused of a fairly serious crime.
Whether or not he is presumed innocent, he is mounting a defense - he has a lawyer, he is giving interviews about the case, and he's been interviewed by the police. You cannot maintain with a straight face that he is able to handle his duties with Wikileaks and defend himself against these charges without one, or the other, suffering.
And in the meantime, the drumbeat continues, with the words "WIKILEAKS" and "RAPE" book-ending every headline of every article about the case, and spilling over into the coverage of the further leakage of the Afghanistan documents.
One more time - if he believes Wikileaks' vision & mission are more important than his own ego, he should step aside and let someone else take over the day-to-day work while he takes a leave of absence to resolve the legal issues he's facing. Because whether or not you (and he) like it, Wikileaks *is* being impacted by the negative coverage of Julian Assange, and that *will* affect their credibility.
Lucky for us there are millions of companies out there hiring Americans with skills, too! Millions of people who have successfully entered the workforce and landed a job have experiences that differ with your bold assertion.
If you don't have the skills someone is looking for, why would you presume they owe you a job? If you DO have the skills someone is looking for, why do you need some sort of "connection" to get a job? Maybe you won't get a job at Company X - lucky for you, Companies R through Z are also hiring people with your skill. Go apply there.
The AP has posted a leaked police report. She doesn't have some sort of direct line to the Swedish police, but she can read the original materials in the original Swedish, without having to rely on a translator.
Is it irregular that the thing was leaked? Sure, investigate to your heart's content. But don't pretend like she's part of some sinister conspiracy to smear Assange for reading what's already out in the public domain and having an opinion on it.
And given the furious amount of news coverage this is generating, I think her opinion - that he should step aside for the time being until the legal issues are dealt with - is a completely reasonable proposition if he values the mission & credibility of Wikileaks.
Problem is that nowhere has she said she reviewed "private" details of the case that have not already been put in the public domain. Yes, a report was leaked... to the AP. Not to Birgitta Jonsdottir.
From the second article linked in TFS:
Jonsdottir said she had read through the police records in Sweden and local news reports—she once lived in Sweden and understands the language—and quickly determined that the case against Assange was not part of any sort of western conspiracy against WikiLeaks.
Is there any reason why we should believe that the "police records" and "local news" in question constitutes some sort of nefarious leak to a woman who is a wikileaks supporter?
I'd suggest that if there was some sort of smear campaign, leaking the documents to one of his supporters, and a woman who calls herself his friend is probably one of the worst people to target with a leak. Put it on Fox News and let them have a field day with it if you really want him smeared.
Interestingly, Assange seems to be back-pedaling now from his "CIA smear" insinuations:
"I never said the word CIA, I never said anyone was behind this," he said. "I said very clearly what we knew, which was that on the 11th we received a warning, and that this was a smear because it is not true," Assange said. "That doesn't mean that intelligence agencies are behind this, nor does it mean they are not behind it, nor does it mean once this has happened, for other reasons, that they are not capitalizing on it."
The man sounds confused at this point. Maybe it would be for the best if he'd just step aside as the spokesman for Wikileaks and let someone else do it while he focuses on dealing with these allegations. It'd be better for him and better for Wikileaks. Provided, of course, that he believes that Wikileaks is more important than his ego.
Can we agree that ridiculous oversimplifications certainly don't determine worth, either?
Your argument that "connections" are the determinant of worth falls down in the face of recruiting sites like Monster.com. Want a better job? Learn the skills required listed as a requirement of some of those jobs, and start applying.
I didn't know a single person at my current company, I sent them my resume, passed the interviews, and got a job offer.
I make well over 75k now.
How does that happen, in your world where only connections determine worth?
You can live just fine in Boston on 75k per year. You just won't afford the 6k+/month penthouses on Boston Common.
You'll buy or rent a place in Somerville, or Dorchester, or Allston, or Brighton, or any of the other much-more-affordable sections of town that make up "greater Boston".
If you really want to live cheap, you move to Roxbury or Mattapan and buy body armor.
You are definitely blurring the line between "comfortable" and "super rich" - 75k, 100k a year is nowhere near enough to be jet-setting with Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.
I make just over 100k today. I hang with the same friends I had when I made 35-45k. Hell, some of the guys I hang with today I first met in 1st grade.
Show the flaw in my logic
75k is not "rich elites," who have "hundreds of millions of dollars." 75k is a comfortable middle class lifestyle. It is not private Gulfstream jets and penthouse suites. Your flaw is in assuming that there is some sort of inverse relationship between money and trust, when you have failed to establish any such causal relationship.
It should not be so difficult for ordinary people to make $75k.
Perhaps ordinary people should try developing skills that are *worth* 75k per year to an employer? What we achieve too easily we esteem too lightly.
I didn't make 75k per year until after I finished college & had 6-7 years of industry experience, during the run-up to the dot-com bust. It was a lot of work to get there, but it was worth the effort. 75k is a lot of money, if people want to earn it, they should expect to work hard to earn it.
You don't get to change the legal terminology just because you object to the emotional "flavor" of the name of the charge he's being investigated for.
The press is entirely correct in reporting that he is being investigated for "molestation" and "rape" because what he has allegedly done seems to fit the *LEGAL* definition of those crimes, regardless of whether or not you feel it fits the colloquial definition you seem to be arguing should be used instead.
"Assange charged with being a jerk-faced poophead" is neither informative nor descriptive of the charges against him, despite the fact that we'd all understand the general thrust of the report.
Credible information of a crime is released by a police spokesperson, or the minister in charge of the department - not a private citizen, and certainly not a foreign national.
So then we should all ignore Wikileaks, and wait for the police or a department spokesperson to tell us what crimes are being committed in government and industry, too, right?
You can't say "the CIA is behind a massive campaign to smear Assange," and then say that "this case has nothing to do with a cover-up." If the government is actively manipulating the Swedish criminal justice system and the accusers to railroad Assange, then there is a *massive* coverup at work, and information about that (including how flimsy everybody is assuming the case must be) is certainly relevant and leak-worthy, if anything is.
So you have no problem with police sharing an ongoing investigation with the public? This isn't like where there's a cover-up going on, and it needs to be leaked.
Actually, we're all being asked to believe that there *is* a massive coverup going on: a coverup of a smear campaign by the US government, against Assange. I'd love to see all the documents related to this case, it would help us all to understand the scope of the CIA's influence over the Swedish judicial system, wouldn't it?
My complaint is that its very convenient for a country to trot this out, immediately after the Wikileaks disclosure, by a country known to have done dirty tricks like this in the past.
So... you're talking about Sweden right? Because he's not being investigated for these allegations in the US. Or are we to believe that of these two possibilities:
a) Julian Assange acts like a jerk with a couple girls in Sweden because, "hey, these girls sort of dig me, and think I'm kind of a hero;"
b) The CIA finds 2 women in Sweden who both regard Assange highly (remember - one helped bring him there to speak, the other was in full rock-star stalker mode, from what we've heard), buys them off, convinces them both to go have sex with Assange, and then guides them to the nearest police station to file a complaint, and then begins influencing and guiding the entire Swedish criminal justice system into railroading Julian Assange into prison all because his organization leaked classified operational documents that, so far, don't appear to contain anything particularly damning or illuminating that we haven't already seen reported.
you're claiming that (B) is actually MORE likely to be the scenario? Think of the complexity it would involve, and then ask yourself whether or not that would make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
How about Gen. Patton? Can we agree that Patton is more authoritative?
George Patton said: "Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash."
Rommel having been on the losing side doesn't make the principle any less relevant, and didn't render him incapable of articulating it, even if he eventually lost.
But since you're keeping score, Patton was most definitely on the winning side, and seems to have agreed with Gen. Rommel's sentiment.
Are you joking? I'm the guy saying that Assange has been implying it's the CIA all along, but now he wants to change the argument from "I'm the victim of a smear," to "I never said the word 'CIA'!"
Do try to keep up. You might even find you agree with me.
I didn't say they were impossible, I said the existence of all of these elements, in concert with one another, is a lot less likely to be the case than "guy acts like jerk, girl gets pissed and goes to police."
The person citing Occam's razor as support for the conspiracy theory below is amazing to me, when a simple "guy pisses off girl" scenario is much more likely (and doesn't require the presence, cooperation, and silence of quite a few other people to work).
Slashdot: letting IT people indulge in their lawyer fantasies since 1997.
Since some people are too fucking dimwitted to read, I'll repost the relevant point here:
What, I never said YOU were too fucking dimwitted to read, AC. Just that some people are!
No, it's really not a stretch, given the context of the discussion - namely that Assange's organization leaked classified documents pertaining to operations of the US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan & Iraq.
There is NO other reasonable conclusion that people would draw from his statements, which strongly implied (but did not state outright) that the CIA and other US agencies were behind this "smear campaign".
Yeah, totally makes sense that, after receiving a warning that "the government of Sweden is out to get you," you'd... go to Sweden. He would've been better off coming here to the US, I suppose, since he had no reason to fear that the US would try dirty tricks against him.
I'm well aware that many other countries have troops over there. But let's be fully, brutally honest - the US has "the most" to lose in Afghanistan. Sweden has ~550 troops there, and that's the 16th largest contingent, according to this info.
Here, I'll quote back the relevant part of my post you're ignoring:
Are we supposed to believe that the Australian intelligence service was warning him that Nigeria was plotting dirty tricks against him, for not helping them smuggle $10 million USD out of the country by providing a bank account number to the son of their former finance minister?
Or that they had reason to believe 2 girls in Sweden who he had not met yet were plotting his eventual downfall?
Yes, it's intellectual dishonesty to pretend that "The CIA / US Government" is not *exactly* what he meant when he claimed it was a smear campaign. Look at the posts here in support of him - the overwhelming majority of his supporters have CLEARLY drawn that same conclusion.
So, as I said, he didn't specifically utter the words "CIA" - but in the context in which these statements & implications were made, there is no escaping the conclusion that that is exactly what he *meant*. Of course he can distract us now by saying "I NEVER SAID THAT! PROVE THAT I SAID THE WORDS CIA!" Which is, frankly, a geek's argument of last resort, and you see it here all the time on Slashdot - derail the discussion by arguing about the literal content of the message, while ignoring the context & implications that were most certainly intended.
Sure, it could be a CIA plot, but he's specifically disavowing making that allegation, so clearly he has no evidence that it is.
Lacking evidence that it's a CIA plot, it's just as likely the story plays out like this:
A guy goes 39 years without amounting to much more than a hacking charge. And then suddenly he gets his 15 minutes of fame by embarrassing the world's most powerful government, and has his face plastered all over newspapers around the world. Suddenly he starts feeling pretty powerful - people say he's a hero, people want to hear him talk, people care about what he has to say - hell, some girls are even throwing themselves at him! So maybe he gets a little overzealous, or starts feeling overly entitled, because after all, he's *important* - and behaves like a jerk and pressures a girl into doing something she didn't really want to do. Or maybe he just pisses off the wrong girl by not calling her, and she decides to start a little smear campaign of her own.
I mean, since we're speculating without evidence, that story reads as far more likely to me than it being a CIA smear campaign, since the smear campaign would require:
-- the 2 girls to be in the service of the CIA;
-- Most of the world media to be dupes of the CIA;
-- The entire criminal justice system of Sweden to be easily manipulated by the US;
-- an Icelandic MP (and ardent supporter of Wikileaks) to suddenly be in the employ of the CIA;
AND, the kicker:
-- That the bumbling organization that can't keep PFC Manning from stealing all its data is simultaneously capable of pulling off a black op of this scope just to discredit the guy, rather than simply making him have an accident, and eliminating the problem.
You CANNOT be serious.
He's never claimed it was the CIA in much the same way that Fox News "never claims" stuff - you say it in every way you can except the one you want to be able to deny, and then you try to shift the argument so it's about your "word choice" rather than the intent of your statements.
"We were warned on the 11th by Australian intelligence that we should expect this sort of thing. We were warned about dirty tricks and specifically that they would be of a type like this.”
"Assange, who is Australian by birth, told WikiLeaks' Twitter page the charges were 'without basis' and that their timing was 'deeply disturbing.'"
"We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one."
What conclusion does he expect everybody to draw with these statements, issued in the context of the news coverage over wikileaks' publication of the Afghan War Diaries? Obviously, that these charges are part of a smear campaign against him, orchestrated by the US government, and that these allegations were the first "dirty trick" to be used as part of that campaign.
To now backpedal and shift the focus onto a question of word choice is disingenuous at best, and absolutely intellectually dishonest. He never specifically uttered the word "CIA," no. But every single statement he's issued since the charges came up has screamed "It's a smear campaign by the US government."
So... men are smart enough to be elected to office and keep themselves in power... but so dumb that they're trivially manipulated into "constructing a reality" for females (their wives and girlfriends) that is actively hostile to the men putting the laws in place?
Maybe we deserve what we get, then... just wow.
Wait, wait - is "free thinker" code for "no proof or substantiation of allegations required?"
Perhaps you could try making a point rather than engaging in name-calling & rhetoric that is clearly FUD in an effort - a failing effort, that is - to sound clever?
Mathematical news flash: 10% unemployment means 90% employment. Yes, unemployment is high. Comparative to the average, IT workers are running ~6% unemployment - they're doing much better than the average. Given that we are not seeing millions of people graduating college and then immediately going on welfare, your argument fails.
People ARE finding a job, and not every company that wants to hire a senator's daughter is going to find one. I am in the job market right now, and it seems as robust as it's ever really been. I also see plenty of new hires coming on board right out of college - based primarily on their skills, not on who they know. I'm not aware of any senators' daughters in the group, but I am aware of several kids who impressed me as being awfully bright and motivated during our interviews.
Is it "easier" to get a job with connections to a particular company? Sure. But most people don't have connections to a senator, and most (remember - 90% employment!) people are still finding a job, despite your unsubstantiated claims.
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, she's not suggesting he quit and sever ties with Wikileaks. She's suggesting he step aside and let somebody else handle the day-to-day Wikileaks gig while he focuses on dealing with his legal issues. It's called a leave of absence, and it happens ALL. THE. TIME. in cases like this, where somebody in a role of leadership / responsibility is accused of a fairly serious crime.
Whether or not he is presumed innocent, he is mounting a defense - he has a lawyer, he is giving interviews about the case, and he's been interviewed by the police. You cannot maintain with a straight face that he is able to handle his duties with Wikileaks and defend himself against these charges without one, or the other, suffering.
And in the meantime, the drumbeat continues, with the words "WIKILEAKS" and "RAPE" book-ending every headline of every article about the case, and spilling over into the coverage of the further leakage of the Afghanistan documents.
One more time - if he believes Wikileaks' vision & mission are more important than his own ego, he should step aside and let someone else take over the day-to-day work while he takes a leave of absence to resolve the legal issues he's facing. Because whether or not you (and he) like it, Wikileaks *is* being impacted by the negative coverage of Julian Assange, and that *will* affect their credibility.
Lucky for us there are millions of companies out there hiring Americans with skills, too! Millions of people who have successfully entered the workforce and landed a job have experiences that differ with your bold assertion.
If you don't have the skills someone is looking for, why would you presume they owe you a job? If you DO have the skills someone is looking for, why do you need some sort of "connection" to get a job? Maybe you won't get a job at Company X - lucky for you, Companies R through Z are also hiring people with your skill. Go apply there.
The AP has posted a leaked police report. She doesn't have some sort of direct line to the Swedish police, but she can read the original materials in the original Swedish, without having to rely on a translator.
Is it irregular that the thing was leaked? Sure, investigate to your heart's content. But don't pretend like she's part of some sinister conspiracy to smear Assange for reading what's already out in the public domain and having an opinion on it.
And given the furious amount of news coverage this is generating, I think her opinion - that he should step aside for the time being until the legal issues are dealt with - is a completely reasonable proposition if he values the mission & credibility of Wikileaks.
Problem is that nowhere has she said she reviewed "private" details of the case that have not already been put in the public domain. Yes, a report was leaked... to the AP. Not to Birgitta Jonsdottir.
From the second article linked in TFS:
Is there any reason why we should believe that the "police records" and "local news" in question constitutes some sort of nefarious leak to a woman who is a wikileaks supporter?
I'd suggest that if there was some sort of smear campaign, leaking the documents to one of his supporters, and a woman who calls herself his friend is probably one of the worst people to target with a leak. Put it on Fox News and let them have a field day with it if you really want him smeared.
Interestingly, Assange seems to be back-pedaling now from his "CIA smear" insinuations:
(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j67FZIpdD8zrIyYcrXZQ4cqFj_mgD9I384000)
The man sounds confused at this point. Maybe it would be for the best if he'd just step aside as the spokesman for Wikileaks and let someone else do it while he focuses on dealing with these allegations. It'd be better for him and better for Wikileaks. Provided, of course, that he believes that Wikileaks is more important than his ego.
Can we agree that ridiculous oversimplifications certainly don't determine worth, either?
Your argument that "connections" are the determinant of worth falls down in the face of recruiting sites like Monster.com. Want a better job? Learn the skills required listed as a requirement of some of those jobs, and start applying.
I didn't know a single person at my current company, I sent them my resume, passed the interviews, and got a job offer.
I make well over 75k now.
How does that happen, in your world where only connections determine worth?
You can live just fine in Boston on 75k per year. You just won't afford the 6k+/month penthouses on Boston Common.
You'll buy or rent a place in Somerville, or Dorchester, or Allston, or Brighton, or any of the other much-more-affordable sections of town that make up "greater Boston".
If you really want to live cheap, you move to Roxbury or Mattapan and buy body armor.
You are definitely blurring the line between "comfortable" and "super rich" - 75k, 100k a year is nowhere near enough to be jet-setting with Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.
I make just over 100k today. I hang with the same friends I had when I made 35-45k. Hell, some of the guys I hang with today I first met in 1st grade.
75k is not "rich elites," who have "hundreds of millions of dollars." 75k is a comfortable middle class lifestyle. It is not private Gulfstream jets and penthouse suites. Your flaw is in assuming that there is some sort of inverse relationship between money and trust, when you have failed to establish any such causal relationship.
Perhaps ordinary people should try developing skills that are *worth* 75k per year to an employer? What we achieve too easily we esteem too lightly.
I didn't make 75k per year until after I finished college & had 6-7 years of industry experience, during the run-up to the dot-com bust. It was a lot of work to get there, but it was worth the effort. 75k is a lot of money, if people want to earn it, they should expect to work hard to earn it.
You don't get to change the legal terminology just because you object to the emotional "flavor" of the name of the charge he's being investigated for.
The press is entirely correct in reporting that he is being investigated for "molestation" and "rape" because what he has allegedly done seems to fit the *LEGAL* definition of those crimes, regardless of whether or not you feel it fits the colloquial definition you seem to be arguing should be used instead.
"Assange charged with being a jerk-faced poophead" is neither informative nor descriptive of the charges against him, despite the fact that we'd all understand the general thrust of the report.
So then we should all ignore Wikileaks, and wait for the police or a department spokesperson to tell us what crimes are being committed in government and industry, too, right?
You can't say "the CIA is behind a massive campaign to smear Assange," and then say that "this case has nothing to do with a cover-up." If the government is actively manipulating the Swedish criminal justice system and the accusers to railroad Assange, then there is a *massive* coverup at work, and information about that (including how flimsy everybody is assuming the case must be) is certainly relevant and leak-worthy, if anything is.
Actually, we're all being asked to believe that there *is* a massive coverup going on: a coverup of a smear campaign by the US government, against Assange. I'd love to see all the documents related to this case, it would help us all to understand the scope of the CIA's influence over the Swedish judicial system, wouldn't it?
So... you're talking about Sweden right? Because he's not being investigated for these allegations in the US. Or are we to believe that of these two possibilities:
a) Julian Assange acts like a jerk with a couple girls in Sweden because, "hey, these girls sort of dig me, and think I'm kind of a hero;"
b) The CIA finds 2 women in Sweden who both regard Assange highly (remember - one helped bring him there to speak, the other was in full rock-star stalker mode, from what we've heard), buys them off, convinces them both to go have sex with Assange, and then guides them to the nearest police station to file a complaint, and then begins influencing and guiding the entire Swedish criminal justice system into railroading Julian Assange into prison all because his organization leaked classified operational documents that, so far, don't appear to contain anything particularly damning or illuminating that we haven't already seen reported.
you're claiming that (B) is actually MORE likely to be the scenario? Think of the complexity it would involve, and then ask yourself whether or not that would make sense.