Wikileaks

All clean what we get to see.

What Wikileaks and the rest of the world sees.

I predict that the effect of the latest round of Wikileaks leaks will be to cause the U.S.of A. to double down on more or less (with the accent on less) accurate drone attacks that will continue to kill the number 2 (or is that number 3, I never can remember) man in the Taliban or Al Quada or whatever, plus of course, various innocent civilians who will be with any luck children so we don't have to deal with them when they grow up.

The later information concerning the kids will not of course be known here in America because the "citizens" just don't want to hear it and our rulers don't want us to know, so the vast (as in really vast) majority of us won't take the time or trouble to go look it up by clicking on foreign news sources, so there will be no need to do any real censorship.

In addition, all the people involved with Wikileaks will be charged with multiple sex crimes in many different countries (all of this will be extensively reported to the American public).

Finally, many very serious people, who were completely convinced that there were WMD in Iraq and who are now convinced that Iran is just a breath away from a nuclear bomb which they will drop on D.C. because then American won't retaliate will tell us that there is nothing new here, we already knew this and therefore we should pay no attention to it. Anyway these leaks will cause if they haven't already caused more death an destruction than all America's military and CIA attacks have caused in the last ten or twenty or thirty years.

Oh yeah, lookie lookie lookie at what CNN did to their "interview" with Assange who walked off the set when they refused to speak with him about the facts raised by the latest leaks. Instead they kept trying to do an interview about his personal life. He left their interviewer looking like the dork she was.

So there, take that you unserious dirty hippies when we don't want you to see it we make sure you don't.

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest, just mildly and with the most deferential attitude that this is a complete lie and total bullshit. In a most respectful manner of course.

Taxes and Real Work

Many things to do this week. Custody trial coming up tomorrow.

However, how is this an apology? "Gee, we're really sorry if you thought this was racist, cause you know it really wasn't. But, if you miss-interpreted it then we are really sorry."

Actually, the monkey imagery was nasty, more nasty than monkey imagery of Bush, because African Americans have been compared to monkeys for ever. It's all part of our racist history. But it was the fact that the cartoon cops killed the monkey which put it over the edge. You'll notice that Murdoch doesn't mention that little part of his cartoon. Doesn't apologize for that either, you'll notice. You'll also remember than no comparison of Bush to a monkey ever showed the monkey (or Bush) getting killed.

It's a bait and switch kind of thing. Hey look at my left hand and ignore what my right is doing. I'll apologize for the lesser offense not the greater. Now let's all go out and by my paper, OK?

OK, back to the working world now.

Ted Stevens Reports

This Associated Press report has got to be one of the strangest leads I've ever read in a straight news article in a straight news report: The statement that it "threatened" to end Stevens' political career and that it "increased" Stevens' "difficulty" in the race for senator seem to be understatement at its most sublime.

Although, I must admit that from what I've been reading about Alaska, I see a possibility that Stevens might pull off. Federal Rules on sentencing do, however require that he be jailed pending his appeal, unless the sitting judge believe that there is a good likelihood of success on the appeal. I guess there is nothing preventing Stevens from running from prison, after all Debs did it.

The reporting on the trial brings to mind my previous thoughts on trial reporting and quite frankly most reporting on issues that I am familiar with. That is you can't really believe much of it. From everything I read on Stevens' e trial I thought that the government was having a hard time proving its' case and I looked to find articles on the trial. I should have known better.

The few trials of mine that have made the news have been reported "through a glass darkly" to coin a phrase (actually I've always wanted to use that phrase somewhere and I think this might be my only chance). At any rate the one I remember most was an arson trial that I won. The jury came back with a not guilty after six hours.

The local paper covered it with extensive reporting for two days. After the not guilty verdict people who read the paper had to assume that the jury were either drunk or paid off to come up with that verdict. The prosecution's case had been reported completely, however the defense case was barely mentioned. Unhappily, I think that this is pretty much the way most things are covered.

I've seen worse coverage of a labor struggle that I was involved in. The local paper there juxtaposed the most mild and conciliatory quotes from management with our (the unions) most militant quotes.

When I was stationed in Thailand in 67-68 and worked in the medical supply operation that provided medical supplies for all Southeast Asia (except Vietnam); Newsweek wrote an article about how we were winning the hearts and minds of the locals up country with about $100,000.00 worth of medical supplies a month. Except it was well over 10 times that much.

Oh well, as my first sergeant said: "Don't believe anything that you hear, and only half of what you see." It's worked for me.

Lies, Lies, Lies

Well so McCain has said that he had the same experience that Solzhenitsyn had when someone drew a cross in the dirt (sand, snow, whatever) while they were both prisoners. Of course McCain doesn't want you to think that he would ever mention his POW status for mere political purposes. It could have happened. On the other hand he didn't mention it for 25 years after he was released.

You know I think that the real thing here is that McCain (an any Republican) can lie as much as they want while Democrats can't mildly exaggerate the truth.

A final thought. I've seen stories about Solzhenitsyn having that experience, but I haven't seen any which either links or purports to send one to the actually page and book that the story came from, if it is really from Solzhenitsyn and not some glurge made up after the guy died.

Oh Christ

I am listening to an asshole in jail right now who wants out even though he checked into the ER on an overdose while out on bond. Then he notifies the court and me that he was suffering from severe electrical shocks, unfortunately no medical records confirm this yet.

On the other hand presidential candidates can look you straight in the eye (or camera as the case may be) and tell you one tihng while the video of them saying just the opposite is playing right behind them. So I guess I can see where my guys think that they should be able to look at you and lie and get away with it. I am constantly forced to point out to them that they are not wealthy politicians who control courts and police departments.

Lies and Liars

I've often looked at clients who give me some sort of BS about how they got into the situation that brought them to my door. For instance, the guy who blew a .23 and tells me that he had had 2 beers and a glass of wine that night; the fellow who can't be bothered to look for work 3 times a week to forestall a contempt action for child support; or the guy who really didn't steal that stuff from K-Mart (who should I believe my client or that lying video tape?).

But you know what as I look at those who run this country, who simply look into the camera and say whatever comes to mind at the moment I can consider my clients pikers in the liar department. McCain lies about his divorce, he lies about what he told his captors, he lies about what his positions might be on torture at any given moment and just goes on.

Obama is not quite up to the level of McCain. I hope he never will be. Still his statements on his current position on FISA are simply flat out lies. Probably I pay more attention to Obama because I had more hope for him.

I had thought that Bill Clinton would be the beginning of a wedge to allow more progressive in after him. I knew that Clinton was not particularly progressive, but I had no idea how truly conservative he was and is. I also severely underestimate that sustained attack from the right and how the main stream media would puff that.

So I guess what I am saying here is that I have little hope that Obama (who is revealed to me now as a true conservative -- something I guess I should have been more aware of earlier) will be able to enable much of a wedge for progressives.

Well I've said it before and I'll say it again: We're fucked.

Why is this no surprise

Well, I guess somebody had to do the work, but is it really a surprise? I must admit that I only skimmed the article. The information was nothing that I didn't expect. Do you think that it will be more than on news cycle and then sluffed off.

I mean really isn't it more important to attack Obama's patriotism? Or to slander Clinton with sexist slurs?

UPDATE: No coverage what a surprise. It is something I have seen and read before. I once watched a reporter who was there for the invasion of East Timur complaining about the lack of coverage. Another reporter said something to the effect that you can't really complain, because there was some coverage, and anyway people didn't care and that is why there wasn't more. The other guy, a seasoned correspondent simply pointed out that if the media wanted to cover it they covered it (whatever it might be) in depth and for days and days.

That is both true, and the way the media in this country covers themselves. Things are always covered, somewhere, one time. Then those articles can be later pointed out to prove that American Media really do cover the important stories. Of course, the NYT piece about the military isn't being followed up on by anyone. I am will to bet that there will be less follow up coverage than the coverage of Obama's pastor, o lapel pin. Hell, there was less coverage of the fact that the president admitted approving torture then there has been of that damned lapel pin.