Wikileaks

As I listen to the continuing furor over the Wikileaks scandal, I have to wonder what the true goals of people like Julian Assange are.

I have read the Wikileaks home page as well as their explanation of their goals and purposes, and why they think what they are doing is a necessary thing to make the world a better place - but I don't see it in their actions. Frankly, I believe that secrets have a place, and while some of them are kept to protect the guilty and should be revealed, that others protect the innocent and should not. In spite of all their claims of redacting and editing out names of people who they believe may be harmed by the release of information, I don't honestly believe that Wikileaks has a rational grip on that idea.

First, the Wikileaks information releases focus primarily on Western nations. Every nation in the world has state secrets, and I find it hard to believe that NO asian nation has anyone willing to reveal the various travesties of justice that may have happened on their home soil. It's almost like South America and Asia don't exist as far as Wikileaks is concerned. Or have their realized -to a man it seems - that people like Assange are the greater threat? That the destabilization of international relations which seems to be the goal of Wikileaks makes this world a MORE dangerous place, not a safer one?

Second, Assange's data releases are timed almost exactly like a kidnapper would carry out threats to harm their victim - the only difference is the apparent lack of demand for a ransom.

The most recent response to the pressure he is under appears to be the release of a list of assets around the world which would harm the interests of the Unites States if they were attacked by terrorists. There is absolutely NO benefit to be found in releasing such information; all he can accomplish by this is let terrorists know where they should strike to do the US the most harm. Wikileaks says this release was to invalidate claims that diplomatic personnel don't spy out strategic information, and defends this release by claiming they haven't revealed what security measures are in place, or where the most vulnerable locations of each asset are, but this is a stupid defense. NO fortress is impregnable, and the BEST protection against terrorists is keeping them from finding out what the best targets are. Remember, these are people who think a good form of attack is to walk into a crowded marketplace full of innocents with a bomb strapped to your chest, and then blow yourself up. OF COURSE what information diplomatic people run across is gathered and evaluated. Every country does that, and it would be incredibly foolish if they didn't. Who doesn't make a point of remembering things they learn about other people and places in case that information is useful in the future?

Assange's history shows a deeply held resentment of governments and authorities of all kinds. From his early hacking days in his home nation of Australia to his current role as the founder of Wikileaks, his internet goals have always been the embarrassment of various entities who had kept secrets for any reason he didn't like. Now that he is reportedly seeking asylum in Switzerland, I'd be surprised if there were any leaks about that country. I'd be willing to bet that his purported goal of "providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices" doesn't extend to a country he hopes will protect him from the anger of the others, and from the justice he faces for his own sexual misadventures.

The real problem is that things like a diplomat's opinion of the leaders of the country he is serving in don't constitute a "censored injustice" in any way, shape or form. That Saudi Arabia doesn't want to publicly reveal their true feelings about Iran's president isn't an injustice. That a Chinese official doesn't want his personal opinion of North Korea's Kim Jong Il, as expressed in a private conversation with a US diplomat (who he HAD to know would pass it along to his superiors), revealed to the world isn't injustice. It's sensible caution. Wikileaks is led by and composed of immature people who don't get that.

Which is why I believe that Julian Assange and Wikileaks are a greater threat to peace and stability on this planet than even any valid injustice they might happen to reveal, and as such they need to be stopped. For the good of us all.

I will NEVER in ANY WAY support or help Wikileaks. I will not contribute to them, I will not "like" them on Facebook, I will not support anyone who advertises with them (there are no advertisers on wikileaks that I could find, BTW), and I will not host any information for them.

I WILL support severe penalties for anyone who betrays his oaths and his country by contributing to wikileaks, and I WILL rejoice at Assange's eventual downfall. This man is a bigger threat to the planet right now than Osama bin Laden.

Burning Qur'ans?

I am a Christian, by most accounts a conservative, and I am at my core not comfortable with the claimed motives of those building a Mosque 2 blocks from the location where a team of Islamic extremists killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

That being said, what the heck is going on in the mind of this idiot in Florida with his "Burn a Qur'an Day"?!!! I mean, really - what the heck are you thinking, dude?

I am firmly convinced that the core essence of being a Christian is to live your life in imitation of, and for Christ. The guiding principle here is succinctly expressed in the view, WWJD (that's "What Would Jesus Do", for the rare individual who is unfamiliar), and I am FIRMLY CONVINCED that there is NO WAY Jesus would participate in, condone or fail to verbally object to the burning of a Qur'an or anything else that other people honor and revere.

I am not allowed to question this man's Salvation, but I can indeed question his brains, his motives, and his ability to follow our Lord. He is making Christians look bad because, with the attention the media is giving this idiot, it almost appears that there are more than 10-15 people participating. His church has 50 members - total - and I sincerely doubt that all of them will participate. Which leads to my next question...

WHY is our media giving this...person...power he doesn't deserve?

This one-man crusade to offend millions is being heard around the world because our media is giving him the voice to reach that far. If the moderate Muslims are indeed moderate, this will certainly cause many of them to reconsider their moderate position. If they were ever inclined to learn anything about Christianity and Christians, this will change a lot of minds in the wrong direction. In a world full of hatred, this will bring even more.

I do NOT endorse this man's actions. I repudiate them, as a citizen of the US and as a Christian. He does NOT represent me, my Lord, or my country. May God have mercy on him for what he is doing.

"Ground Zero" Mosque

In the years since 9-11 I've heard many times that the actions of a few radical Islamists in conducting those attacks shouldn't reflect on the majority, and that "Islam is a religion of peace".

Now, I agree that the rule in our country says that the people who want to build a mosque on privately owned land near the 9-11 site (and I think the entire "ground zero" or "near ground zero" debate is completely specious) have a right to do so. The community also has a right to object (just as in any other case where a controversial construction project is going into a neighborhood), and there is a resolution process to decide the entire result. I'm sure the same thing would happen if someone tried to build a XXX Adult Theater in my neighborhood.

What is more important to me is the views of those who are proposing the construction in the first place. I think that I am learning a GREAT DEAL about the sensitivity - or lack thereof - of the "moderate" Islamists/Muslims who have claimed to have zero affiliation with the extremists. If they cannot or will not see how offensive their actions are to the community they are living in, I now am certain of something about Islam and its adherents which I only suspected previously.

Someday, and remember you heard it here first, some or other of the Imams teaching at that site will refer to it as the site of a "great victory", for in truth I believe that many of the moderate Muslims think of it in that way even if they won't say as much among those who do not share their beliefs. It explains just why they seem not to hear the objections of those who lost family that day, for whom the site still hold very powerful memories and associations.

I can understand and appreciate that. It lets me know with no more room for doubt just exactly who I am dealing with...

Regarding developments on the other side of this issue...

The entire "Burning Korans" thing is completely and totally embarrassing. Yeah, I know you're upset. I know this whole issue reaches your 'hot buttons' and that the deaths of 3,000 Americans at the hands of Muslim extremists isn't something that is going to go away anytime soon. I know that Muslims have been burning American flags and killing Christians all along, and that the "Islam is a religion of peace" is a mantra used when it's convenient, but WHY would you cross THAT line?! WE are BETTER than that! Why do you drag us down to their level?!

Some people need to have a little more faith in the American way, and a LOT more brains when it comes to living it.

And finally, what the President said...and didn't say.

Obama said that he believes "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

The funny part is that I believe the above is absolutely correct - IF accompanied with the caveat that the lack of sensitivity on the part of those wishing to build the Mosque is appalling. The President didn't say that though. What he said a day later when asked specifically about it was:

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding."

Well if he isn't going to comment on the wisdom of putting a Mosque there, why the hell did he bother to comment on the legal right to do so when he isn't part of the legal case?!!!

He needed to say both or neither, but he failed us rather miserably on this one. I've really liked the man until this point, but Senate candidate Jeff Greene said it FAR better.

"Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else."

He gets MY vote.

What is the matter with our government?

I like President Obama.

I really do. I don't subscribe to the notion that he is an undercover radical Moslem, or that he was born outside of the USA. I tend to share his idealism, his hopes for our country and his desire to fix what he sees as wrong with the US. The economy is a problem he is doing his best to fix. Things like the gulf oil spill weren't issues he has any expertise at all on, but he is took a leadership role insofar as it was possible for him to do so. The war in Afganistan is a reality he is facing up to, as is Iraq - and he is doing fairly well considering just how unrealistic some of his campaign positions were. He has shown a willingness to make the hard decisions I didn't expect from someone who's positions are far more liberal than mine.

I'm not a fan of his class-war rhetoric though, and the attempts to divide the country into the rich (over $200,000/year earners) vs everyone else is something I find disturbing.

What really has me bothered right now though, is this video.

This is truly bothersome. Why is it we can have ARMED INVADERS from another country illegally entering the USA, shooting our citizens and committing other crimes, and all the Federal government does is put up signs warning residents of the USA not to enter certain parts of OUR OWN COUNTRY, because there may be armed citizens of another country there?!!!

You're kidding me, right?

Isn't this why we have an Army, and Air Force, and the Marines? To protect our borders from foreign invaders? What the hell is going on?!!

I'm not buying an iPad...

Personally, I blame Microsoft.

They left us all with no choice but to put up with such poor and vulnerable OSs for so long that they've forced a segment of the population into rabid Apple fandom.

Apple certainly does have a lot of panache...or gall, depending on your point of view.

The iPad is a cute and clever device. It has a screen that will pivot the image around to keep up up and down down no matter which way you hold it. It also does not support flash or Java, cannot connect to any form of USB storage or external devices, cannot take pictures, cannot tether to a phone and has no user replaceable parts (ie, batteries). Still, Apple expects this to be the "Next Big Thing".

The amazing part is that they just may be right. Thanks to Microsoft, there are a lot of people out there now who will buy dirt if the Apple logo is properly applied.

Eventually Apple will release a version with support for USB, java, flash and all the other gaps in the current iPad's repertoire. Then all the early adopters will, out of a devotion to Apple born of hatred towards Microsoft, simply buy a new one and never once complain about the waste of not doing all that the first time.

What's so hard about building a thin, light device with a 6-10" touchscreen display that has all the features Apple has omitted? What's so hard about adding a USB keyboard, or a 5 megapixel camera? Heck, my phone - a Nexus One - can do most of the same things the iPad can, and a few (like taking pictures) that it can't. If such a device shows up, I will probably buy one.

Even if it's an iPad...

Voting For or Against

I predicted that George Bush would win the 2004 election.

I know that sounds kind of pretentious at this late date, but I really did. Let me explain how I knew.

In June of 2004 I was attending my 25th College Reunion in Boston, and at one point my family and I exited the subway at Kendall Square. There were a number of young people, students most likely, who were carrying banners and passing out flyers. One of them approached me and gave me a flyer while saying, "Help us get George Bush out of the White House!"

I looked at the flyer, and it was a pretty basic political summary sheet of why his particular group didn't like President Bush. Looking around, I noticed that all the banners seemed to say much the same thing; get rid of Bush.

Curious, I looked at the young man in front of me and asked, "Who should I vote for?"

For five seconds he had what I can only describe as a "deer-in-the-headlights" look on his face. It was as if I had asked him the one question he had never expected to hear, as if he couldn't even conceive of a political imperative beyond the necessity of getting George Bush out of office. I'm certain he could have rattled off a litany of reasons that the President was the worst choice for the country and for the world, but beyond those negatives he hadn't even thought about the issue. As I waited for his brain to reengage, I considered saying, "You know, we do have to replace him with someone" but I refrained. I didn't think I could have done a good enough job of keeping the amusement out of my voice.

Finally he comprehended the question and reanimated with, "Oh, uh...John Kerry of course!"

I thanked him for the flyer, and went on with my family to the reunion activities. My family had a good time, that young man probably thought he had another convert to his view and I KNEW that George W. Bush would be reelected. Why? Because he was the only candidate.

Think about it. There were two types of votes cast in the election, but they were both about one candidate. There was the Pro-Bush vote and the Anti-Bush vote. In web-based discussions I have seen it referred to as the ABB vote (Anyone But Bush). There wasn't really a John Kerry vote at all, at least not in any numbers worth mentioning.

One thing I can say about human nature; we listen to negatives but we mostly respond to positives. The media is full of negatives on the situation in Iraq every night. Most Americans can tell you how many troops died in attacks yesterday, because that information is easy to come by. In fact, it's pretty hard to avoid. We all know about Scott Peterson, but who was the hero yesterday? Who saved a life, who adopted a child, who passed a test, who fed the hungry, who helped someone in need, who won the lottery? Well, okay the media does publish that last one, but the rest of those might just as well not even exist. In December of 2004 there were several murders at a nightclub in Ohio where Darryl Abbott formerly of the groups Pantera and Damageplan was playing. Darryl was killed, along with 4 others. I know this, but I don't have any recent good news other than good weather in Dallas this month. We listen to the bad news, and so that is what we are given. It doesn't motivate us though.

That was John Kerry's downfall. His entire campaign revolved around the fact that he WASN'T George Bush. I did hear him try to get a few pro-John Kerry points in, but they got buried in the avalanche of anti-Bush propaganda being broadcast by a list of characters that was long on name recognition and short on reasons to vote FOR John Kerry. From Michael Moore to Dan Rather to Bruce Springsteen, the chant was "No More Bush!!" Lost in all that was a reason for John Kerry to be President, the solutions he would propose, the plans he had (I heard that he had one, but I never heard what it was) and the good he would do. People listened, but many of them didn't vote because they hadn't been given someone to vote FOR.

With all the new registrations by Democratic organizations, the "get out the vote" rallies, "vote or die" and "choose or lose" rallies, you'd think George never had a chance, but I knew all along he would win. People will go to hear or see a celebrity, but if that celebrity isn't physically at the polls the number who will show up because some celebrity told them to drops dramatically. The turn out was up overall, but not in the numbers the Democrats needed. And why not? Because ultimately, negatives don't motivate us.

The ABB vote didn't care enough to show up.