Brazil President Pledges Solidarity with WikiLeaks
WALL STREET JOURNAL DECEMBER 10, 2010, 3:19 P.M. ET Brazil President Pledges Solidarity with WikiLeaks By JEFF FICK RIO DE JANEIRO--Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva offered his support to embattled WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday, pointing the finger of blame directly at the U.S. The guy was arrested, and I haven't seen any protest against the siege on freedom of expression, Mr. da Silva said on Brazil's presidential blog, referring to the lack of outcry in Brazilian newspapers about the case. It's funny, there's nothing. Mr. da Silva said that he wanted the first protest against the attack on freedom of expression on the Internet posted on his presidential blog so that we can all protest together. Mr. Assange is in custody in London after being arrested on an international warrant issued by Sweden, where he is accused of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion by two women. The WikiLeaks founder, who for the past few months has hopped between countries, had sexual encounters with the women during a stint in Sweden last summer. Mr. Assange, who has confirmed the sexual encounters but denied the assault allegations, hasn't been charged in either case. The latest release by WikiLeaks of thousands of classified documents from the U.S., many containing embarrassing comments about foreign officials and details about State Department activities overseas, has elicited strong reactions from officials around the world. The U.S. considers the documents stolen. The guy was only publishing that which he read. And if he read it, it's because someone else wrote it. The blame doesn't belong to who released it, the blame is with who wrote it, the former union firebrand said. So, WikiLeaks, my solidarity for disclosing (the documents) and my protest against the siege against freedom of expression. -jeff.f...@dowjones.com LATIN AMERICA NEWS DECEMBER 17, 2010, 3:17 P.M. ET Brazil Joblessness Hits Record Low By MATTHEW COWLEY SAO PAULO?Brazil's unemployment rate fell below 6% in November, underscoring the strong recovery of the Brazilian economy from global crisis, but prompting fresh calls for higher interest rates to tame inflation. Unemployment was 5.7% last month, lower than October's 6.1%, the Brazilian Census Bureau, or IBGE, said Friday. October's rate was the previous low for unemployment recorded under the IBGE's current methodology. Unemployment in November 2009 was 7.4%. Official jobs data only measure part of the Brazilian economy, covering six metropolitan areas and just under 24 million economically active people, roughly a quarter of Brazil's total working population. Nonetheless, unemployment has fallen for six consecutive months, and the numbers present a clear picture of demand for labor outstripping supply. Brazil's economy is roaring, with gross domestic product likely to grow more than 7.5% this year, reversing last year's 0.6% contraction. Low unemployment, though a sign of a growing economy, is a significant and growing risk to the government's inflation target, said Luiza Rodrigues, an economist at Banco Santander, in a research note. Ms. Rodrigues sees the central bank raising its Selic base interest rate, currently 10.75%, as early as January to rein in prices. Ms. Rodrigues said the falling unemployment numbers mean it's likely that workers are going to ask for more salary adjustments, and given the tight labor market, they are likely to succeed; more inflation is coming. Consumer price inflation is pushing toward 6%, above the government's 2010 goal of 4.5%, and orthodox economists say the jobs numbers add to concerns about price pressures. But the central bank has been reluctant to raise interest rates and is now awaiting the impact of measures it took earlier this month to slow bank lending. RBS economist Zeina Latif said the jobs data warrants fast reaction from the government. This means cutting spending and refraining from raising the minimum wage faster than inflation, she said. Minutes from the central bank's latest rate-setting meeting, published Thursday, were ambiguous, leaving the field wide open for the incoming central bank president, Alexandre Tombini, to chart his own course. Mr. Tombini will take over from incumbent Henrique Meirelles in January. Not everyone believes interest rates will move higher. Some voices in both government and business argue that higher rates attract more speculative investments in Brazilian debt, exaggerating the strong appreciation of the Brazilian real. With rates in much of the developed world close to zero, Brazil's sky-high numbers are irresistible. On Friday, the real lost ground against the dollar as worries about the state of Europe's finances outweighed inflation concerns in Brazil. The real was trading at BRL1.7135 per dollar, weaker than Thursday's close of BRL1.702. Much depends on whether President-elect Dilma Rousseff, who takes office Jan. 1, cuts spending, as she has suggested
Transparency, Wikileaks and Julian Assange
Given the name of this list, it surprises me that there has not been more discussion about recent events. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Transparency, Wikileaks and Julian Assange
What's to discuss? The bloke committed treason. (Against a country he's not a citizen of, and merely be being in charge of an organisation that receives and publishes material provided by whistleblowers, which is mostly checked and redacted for personal or currently sensitive details... but it's still EVIL V) End of. ;-) C. On 18/12/2010, at 1:17 AM, Keith Henson wrote: Given the name of this list, it surprises me that there has not been more discussion about recent events. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Lula de Silva and WikiLeaks
Leaked U.S. cables, following Lula de Silva's eight years as president of Brazil, show him cooperating with Washington and double-crossing fellow leftists. http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=iqnuv6babet=1104090650518s=109652e=001OTjDQqgrh55iSJA4vQ6lSGcxXwg1-kFvaS03EfqEf21Yw2A0xXMTA95gcgPL2LhGSVcNh8HekGSguYMsLPW7J3f9DwD4JpZAg6IQM-MaI9HhwVH0iK1YWoUtGawHWEujJPlPqUlhikbmQ_lPS46k_0zgt1L-d9UqHdZw_DkPRxfItVvK_uSiDTV6yCr28WJXKT0HGlF4x_gMGRsOHaGd0CmQ_KjveMNp Brazilian president-elect Dilma Rousseff is an economist, former chief of staff and chosen successor to president Lula. She is the the first female elected president of Brazil. After the 1964 coup d'état she joined Marxist urban guerrilla groups that fought against the military dictatorship, was captured and reportedly tortured in jail. After her release, she helped found the Democratic Labour Party. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Lula de Silva and WikiLeaks
Jon Louis Mann wrote: Leaked U.S. cables, following Lula de Silva's eight years as president of Brazil, show him cooperating with Washington and double-crossing fellow leftists. Double-crossing is an exageration... Brazilian president-elect Dilma Rousseff is an economist, former chief of staff and chosen successor to president Lula. She is the the first female elected president of Brazil. Yep. And the bulgarians are very proud of her, because her father was bulgarian. After the 1964 coup d'état she joined Marxist urban guerrilla groups that fought against the military dictatorship, was captured and reportedly tortured in jail. They forgot to mention that she may have taken part in bank robbery and murder during those times. After her release, she helped found the Democratic Labour Party. That was PDT, which was _not_ Lula's party (PT aka Arbeiterpartei). She switched from PDT to PT quite recently. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Dan Minette wrote: All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Ok, replace breastfeeding with black men dating white girls. If a Social Network disallowed pictures of black men dating white girls it would gain more racist members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of interracial relationships that can best be shown by pictures. Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Not allowing black men to date white girls in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails black-white couples ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Whitepowerbook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Alberto Monteiro (and I didn't even use the H-word or the I-word!) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks?
Or maybe it's everyone and their dog trying to access their new Facebook profile page: (...) Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks?
On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Or maybe it's everyone and their dog trying to access their new Facebook profile page: (...) Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? Well, of course the sociopaths and perverts to which you refer are not on my friends list, so they don't have any meaningful impact on my Facebook experience. I believe that there are sociopaths and perverts at Honda and Volkswagen and ATT and Apple, but I still use their products. And as to others who may actually enjoy the company of sociopaths and perverts: who are you to judge? :-) Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Dave Land wrote: Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? Well, of course the sociopaths and perverts to which you refer are not on my friends list, so they don't have any meaningful impact on my Facebook experience. I mean own in the sense of ownership, not the game-world newspeak own. And as to others who may actually enjoy the company of sociopaths and perverts: who are you to judge? :-) It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook('s policy on breastfeeding) is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dave Land wrote: Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? Well, of course the sociopaths and perverts to which you refer are not on my friends list, so they don't have any meaningful impact on my Facebook experience. I mean own in the sense of ownership, not the game-world newspeak own. I knew that's what you meant: the people who founded it and run it and hold stock in it: that sort of ownership. Not own as in I _own_ my inflated sense of importance and self-righteousness about the management of a certain social network. What I didn't know (because you didn't say 'til now) is that you had a specific axe to grind with them (their censorship of breastfeeding). And as to others who may actually enjoy the company of sociopaths and perverts: who are you to judge? :-) It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Gotcha. The judges would also have accepted misogynists and prudes. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) One could create images of breastfeeding that are pornographic, and others that are not. These guys seem to think that the line lies further towards Victorian tastes than yours. You think that makes them sociopaths and perverts (see, I'm totally paying attention). All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. As long as the site continues and I can keep in touch with my friends and family on it, they can live in friggin' *Brazil*, for all I care. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? and then wrote: It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. It seemed to me that the initial post could have been an excellent illustration of a trap question in the mold of Have you stopped beating your wife?, and left it alone, admiring the complex twists of it semantic seductiveness. But this seems to be a much better question to answer in the real world. The answer is that the culture at large has some very unhealthy and dysfunctional ideas about nudity and sex, and tends to perceive women's exposed breasts (regardless of the reasons why they're exposed) as a sexualized image. I don't know if this is more so, or less so, in Brazil than it is in the USA (I've heard widely conflicting reports), but with only limited exceptions in some more open-minded areas of the country, people are taught to consider exposed female breasts a moral threat of sorts (under the guise of protecting children) and some websites run by people who adhere to that belief system tend to discriminate in that way rather, er, indiscriminately. I don't like the paradigm, I strongly feel that the value system that underlies it is ultimately more destructive and unhealthy than anything else, but it's a very deep-rooted paradigm that would require far more than my own meager efforts to shift. And whether I happen to like it or not, Facebook is likely to continue this behavior for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't necessarily call the attitudes driving it sociopathic, but I suppose I could call some of them perverted, for a fairly loose definition of perversion. (A similar definition exists in a more extreme form in parts of the Arab world where women are forced to wrap themselves in clothing to the extent that they can barely even see, supposedly to avoid tempting nearby men into acts of lust. Both are a form of blaming the victim, and I think men who believe this about women need to work on impulse control more than they need to harass the womenfolk into covering themselves up, but that may just be me.) “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -- Mahatma Gandhi ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Bruce Bostwick wrote: It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. It seemed to me that the initial post could have been an excellent illustration of a trap question in the mold of Have you stopped beating your wife?, and left it alone, admiring the complex twists of it semantic seductiveness. But this seems to be a much better question to answer in the real world. The answer is that the culture at large has some very unhealthy and dysfunctional ideas about nudity and sex, and tends to perceive women's exposed breasts (regardless of the reasons why they're exposed) as a sexualized image. This is sociopathological, pervert and infanticidal. I don't know if this is more so, or less so, in Brazil than it is in the USA (I've heard widely conflicting reports), The conflicting reports are accurate: Brazil _was_ more liberal, but we are slowly becoming more fanatical and mysogynist than Iran and Afghanistan. but with only limited exceptions in some more open-minded areas of the country, people are taught to consider exposed female breasts a moral threat of sorts (under the guise of protecting children) and some websites run by people who adhere to that belief system tend to discriminate in that way rather, er, indiscriminately. This is sick. It's ok for children to watch ultraviolence, hear rap songs that glorify prostitution, but not to watch breasts? I don't like the paradigm, I strongly feel that the value system that underlies it is ultimately more destructive and unhealthy than anything else, but it's a very deep-rooted paradigm that would require far more than my own meager efforts to shift. And whether I happen to like it or not, Facebook is likely to continue this behavior for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't necessarily call the attitudes driving it sociopathic, but I suppose I could call some of them perverted, for a fairly loose definition of perversion. I guess there are other Social Networks with less perverted owners. Here in Brazil, the Social Network of Choice is Orkut (Orkut seems like a Brazil - India Social Network :-) ). (A similar definition exists in a more extreme form in parts of the Arab world where women are forced to wrap themselves in clothing to the extent that they can barely even see, supposedly to avoid tempting nearby men into acts of lust. Both are a form of blaming the victim, and I think men who believe this about women need to work on impulse control more than they need to harass the womenfolk into covering themselves up, but that may just be me.) Men that think so should do the way Oedipus did _after_ he found out he was a parricide and mfer. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
A business decision that injures public health. On Dec 7, 2010 3:15 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to... Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l... ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
A business decision that injures public health. Were facebook the internet, you might have something. But, I just typed breastfeeding videos into google, and got a zillion hits, checked the first one, and found a site with over a score of videos. Some had nothing to do with public health; others could be helpful. It took me 10 seconds to get there. How in the world does changing 10,001 sites with breastfeeding available to 10,000 do much of anything? It's like criticizing the food channel for not carrying cancer self-check instructions. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Ultimately, these sorts of issues are due to insufficient diversity. As long as there is a majority (or perhaps even a large uniform minority) who believe something strongly, there will be businesses or government policies that cater to this majority. Whether government representative or business leader, the thinking goes that restricting things that are disliked by the majority will be beneficial to one's position as politician or business leader. The people who complain about the restrictions are outnumbered or outweighed by those who support the restrictions. And even among those who do not support the restrictions, many will tolerate them because it is not important to them. In order to fight this sort of thing, you have to change the majority opinion. Good luck with that. An alternative is to support fringe or niche groups that do not believe in such restrictions. That is difficult with something like facebook, where much of the utility of the service comes from having a large, mainstream network of people as members. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:25 PM, trent shipley wrote: On Dec 7, 2010 3:15 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to... Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Dan M. A business decision that injures public health. Not directly. Indirectly, it reinforces prejudices against women and childrearing that require little if any persuasion to continue, and considerable effort to dispel. And playing to prejudices is irresponsible, at the very least. But very little of that is Facebook, which is simply doing its best to appeal to a paying audience and maximize its profit, and has done the math in terms of financial bottom-line impact of allowing vs. prohibiting such pictures and decided it can gain greater profits by doing the latter. They missed an opportunity to advance a more forward-thinking and tolerant attitude, is all, and as a corporate entity, did so purely on the basis of that profit/loss analysis. Facebook's customers and their cultural values are the driver behind that. If their target audience had different cultural values, they would play to those just as eagerly -- imagine an alternate-universe USA whose culture is clothing-optional and predominantly neo-Wiccan, in which an equally-profit-motivated Facebook system plays to those cultural values just as enthusiastically as Facebook does in this universe. They merely reflect the wider population's attitudes. And again, my opinion is that those attitudes themselves are the problem, in our universe .. The true paradox of democracy is that it is vulnerable to defeat from within -- Me ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
On 06/12/2010, at 8:46 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:29 PM, trent shipley trent.ship...@gmail.com wrote: How many secrets does Australia have that are worth leaking. Does a significant fraction of the World's population believe it is The Great Satan? Reminds me of the story of the lady who was applying for a visa to enter Australia. When the clerk asked her if she had a criminal record, she replied, I had no idea one was still required. Have I used that joke here before? Well, if so, enjoy it again. Billy Connolly originally, I think. I think? Od anyway. Still funny though. Charlie ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
On 02/12/2010, at 10:29 AM, trent shipley wrote: How many secrets does Australia have that are worth leaking. Does a significant fraction of the World's population believe it is The Great Satan? They released the list of blacklisted domains that was itself secret... stupid policy. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Australia [was: Wikileaks]
Nick Arnett wrote: How many secrets does Australia have that are worth leaking. Does a significant fraction of the World's population believe it is The Great Satan? Reminds me of the story of the lady who was applying for a visa to enter Australia. When the clerk asked her if she had a criminal record, she replied, I had no idea one was still required. Have I used that joke here before? Well, if so, enjoy it again. They don't require a criminal record, but they also ban anyone whose family includes people with Down Syndrome: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/asia/27australia.html Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Australia [was: Wikileaks]
On 06/12/2010, at 10:39 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: How many secrets does Australia have that are worth leaking. Does a significant fraction of the World's population believe it is The Great Satan? Reminds me of the story of the lady who was applying for a visa to enter Australia. When the clerk asked her if she had a criminal record, she replied, I had no idea one was still required. Have I used that joke here before? Well, if so, enjoy it again. They don't require a criminal record, but they also ban anyone whose family includes people with Down Syndrome: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/asia/27australia.html Ban? No. Applications are much more likely to be rejected than those of applicants with no medical conditions, and I think that it's arguable that in many cases the rejections are arbitrary, wrong and unjustifiable. But there's no blanket ban on people with a disability. Canada has very similar guidelines to Australia, with the addition of an applicant being able to buy a bond that indemnifies against future medical expenses. New Zealand has quotas. I think there have to be SOME guidelines on immigration. Question is whether they're applied fairly and humanely, and in the case you cite they seemed to not be, especially as the ministerial appeal was successful. And the whole process is reviewed periodically - http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/report.htm is the most recent report on this issue. Charlie GCU Application Being Considered At The Moment ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
WikiLeaks Founder Assange Vows Poison Pill If Arrested, Killed
FWIW: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is threatening to go nuclear if he is killed or arrested, releasing a poison pill of secret documents even more devastating than the ones that already have sparked diplomatic chaos around the globe, according to the British tabloid The Daily Mail. [...] Assange's poison pill is thought to include embarrassing revelations about the BP oil spill, aerial video of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan that caused civilian casualties, sensitive information on Bank of America, and secret documents that discuss the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, according to the Daily Mail,. Thousands of the site's supporters have downloaded the nuclear bomb from the WikiLeaks website, Stephens claims. http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/wikileaks-assange-poison-pill/2010/12/06/id/379105 http://tinyurl.com/29r8ksd ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Wikileaks?
Is someone running a DDoS attack on Wikileaks tonight (US time)? I'm getting a lot more slow and dropped connections on the Web tonight than usual, so I wondered if it's all over the Net or just here . . . ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks?
At 08:06 PM Monday 12/6/2010, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Is someone running a DDoS attack on Wikileaks tonight (US time)? I'm getting a lot more slow and dropped connections on the Web tonight than usual, so I wondered if it's all over the Net or just here . . . Or maybe it's everyone and their dog trying to access their new Facebook profile page: I just went to a site to read a political opinion article, and they apparently use Facebook for comments and replies, as down below the article in the comments section I saw a box full of the message one of the add-ons¹ I have installed which instead of just showing a 404 error message puts up when it can't get to a page which allows multiple options such as Try again or trying to access that page at various web archive sites which informed me said that The site www.facebook.com is taking too long to respond. . . . In any case, grrr . . . _ ¹Firefox is currently stuck trying to load another site so I can't access the list of add-ons to tell what that add-on is called, so if anyone is interested, ask me later . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
The Manhattan Project was spied on by the Soviets. On Dec 1, 2010 4:18 AM, Alberto Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.br wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that ... I think the worst source of embarassment is the use by .govs of security-weak softwares and OSes. What if this happened 70 years ago and Manhattan Project was leaked to the nazis (or even the soviets)? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l... ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
How many secrets does Australia have that are worth leaking. Does a significant fraction of the World's population believe it is The Great Satan? On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Wayne Eddy darkenf...@gmail.com wrote: It is interesting to hear that there is overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks in the US. From the comments I have read on newspaper articles about Wikileaks here in Australia, I would think a majority of people here (maybe about 75%) are supportive. Personally, I think there is good and bad in what Julian Assange and his team are doing, but that the good definitely outweighs the bad. Regards, Wayne Eddy. On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: There seems to be overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks' release of confidential documents and I was wondering how people here (some of whom may have read Brin's Transparent Society) felt about it. I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:29 PM, trent shipley trent.ship...@gmail.comwrote: How many secrets does Australia have that are worth leaking. Does a significant fraction of the World's population believe it is The Great Satan? Reminds me of the story of the lady who was applying for a visa to enter Australia. When the clerk asked her if she had a criminal record, she replied, I had no idea one was still required. Have I used that joke here before? Well, if so, enjoy it again. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
WikiLeaks
Where are the docs to prove that Soylent Green is really people? -- Matt The film leaked it all, Matt!~) ...there is overwhelming sentiment against . Wikileaks in the US Wayne Eddy. There seems to be overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks' release I was wondering how people here (some of whom may have read Brin's Transparent Society) felt about it. Doug I haven't seen any discussion of this on Brin's Facebook page, but the FB tally I saw indicated a majority in favor of the leaks. I agree that the safety of our troops is paramount, but have not read anything that indicates Americans have died. I've suspected that the government often invokes secrecy to cover up abuse, and WikiLeaks bears this out. I found this update this from Assange's lawyers: Jon Mann Sweden's Public Prosecutor's Office leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was no evidence, and then re-instituted the charges. The damage to Assange's reputation can not be undone. Three months, and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem unclear on the basis to proceed. Apparently consensual sex that started out with a condom ended when the condom broke? Having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. Rape is a crime of violence, duress or deception. There was no fear or violence; deception enters in by deluding the victims into thinking you are someone else, or by drugging them, or by reason of their young age. The women here are near to and over 30 and have international experience, some of it working in Swedish government embassies. There is no suggestion of drugs nor identity concealment. Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the event in tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wilen boasting of their respective conquests. In the case of Ardin, she has threw a party in Assange's honour and tweeted to her followers that she was with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these tweets from the public record. She has also published on the Internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends. The exact content of Wilen's mobile phone texts is not yet known but the bragging and consent of both women to having sex with Assange has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Arden nor Wilen complained to the police but sought advice on how to avoid punishment for making false complaints. Their SMS texts to each other show they have collaborated and tainted each other's evidence. They retained celebrity lawyer, Claes Borgstrom, and contacted the Swedish newspaper, Expressen, in order to maximize the damage to Assange. They belong to the same political group and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organized by them. You can see YouTube video of the event even now. Assange's lawyers did not receive any official documents until November 18, 2010 (and then in Swedish language contrary to European Law) and learned about the status of investigations through prosecution media announcements. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WikiLeaks
On Dec 2, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That strikes me as very strange indeed. is there more to that law than that? Does this apply only to extramarital sex, for example? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
WikiLeaks
They teach you in the military that there are such things as illegal orders. I would argue that there should also be illegal secrecy. Keeping a war crime a secret would qualify. Doug Precisely. If that argument is not successfully made in his defence, then the USA is further down the road to hell than I have feared. Charlie. Definitely getting HOT here, Charlie, and it's not just global warming!~) Jon consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. Jon That strikes me as very strange indeed. Is there more to that law than that? Does this apply only to extramarital sex, for example? I'm certain it doesn't apply to marital sex, but I suppose there may be instances where some guys might use coercion or subterfuge. Obviously the law is being applied under pressure from the U.S. and Interpol. Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
On 01/12/2010, at 3:51 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: There seems to be overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks' release of confidential documents and I was wondering how people here (some of whom may have read Brin's Transparent Society) felt about it. Judging by how they do it - letting the powers-that-be know quite a while in advance what they have and what they're planning to release, and giving time for operations to be moved/ended and some redactions to occur, I think it's a good thing that this material gets released. Also, it's not top secret - about 3 million US govt employees would have had access to most of this anyway, according to an article I was reading earlier. I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. Precisely. Situations like here in Victoria where the contracts for building the new railway station in Melbourne are sealed for FIFTY YEARS are ridiculous - they're anti-democratic and foster corruption. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
Doug Pensinger wrote: I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. I think the worst source of embarassment is the use by .govs of security-weak softwares and OSes. What if this happened 70 years ago and Manhattan Project was leaked to the nazis (or even the soviets)? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Wikileaks
What if this happened 70 years ago and Manhattan Project was leaked to the nazis (or even the soviets)? It was leaked to the Soviets. While Joe McCarthy was able to find 100% of the communist activists working for the Soviet Union in the United States (names kept in his locked briefcase), there were indeed sympathizers to the Soviet Union who got them some information. People were convicted of this. The latest I got was that the information given allowed them to skip the dangerous step of tickling the dragon's tail to determine experimentally what critical mass was. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/espionage.htm Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
It is interesting to hear that there is overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks in the US. From the comments I have read on newspaper articles about Wikileaks here in Australia, I would think a majority of people here (maybe about 75%) are supportive. Personally, I think there is good and bad in what Julian Assange and his team are doing, but that the good definitely outweighs the bad. Regards, Wayne Eddy. On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: There seems to be overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks' release of confidential documents and I was wondering how people here (some of whom may have read Brin's Transparent Society) felt about it. I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
I don't know; I think it still remains to be seen if the good outweighs the bad. While so far the damage to the US appears to be fairly light, I have to wonder about the damage done to US allies and other countries across the globe. I'm sure the Yemeni president (who has been allegedly lying to his parliament) probably looks at this a bit different, and the dynamic of the Iranian nuclear weapons issue might change with the revelations that many of the Arab states are largely aligned with Israel on this. Also, I have to wonder -- given current events -- how China's revelation to North Korea might pan out. While I'm optimistic and hope that goes for the best (and I think it likely will), I can also see it going for the worse too. Also there might be other revelations that come about that have yet to be revealed. Not to mention potential trust issues US allies might have because we're not able to safeguard their dirty laundry sufficiently... Damon. On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Wayne Eddy darkenf...@gmail.com wrote: It is interesting to hear that there is overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks in the US. From the comments I have read on newspaper articles about Wikileaks here in Australia, I would think a majority of people here (maybe about 75%) are supportive. Personally, I think there is good and bad in what Julian Assange and his team are doing, but that the good definitely outweighs the bad. Regards, Wayne Eddy. On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: There seems to be overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks' release of confidential documents and I was wondering how people here (some of whom may have read Brin's Transparent Society) felt about it. I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Wikileaks
I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. Most of the critiques I read that see the leaks as harmful emphasize the fact that statements made to the US by various people in confidence are now out in the open. An example of this is the King of Saudi Arabia's repeated worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon. This included his suggestion that the US bomb their facilities and his promise to provide China with oil in case Iran cuts off their oil supply after they failed to veto sanctions. Or the embarrassment for the leader of Yeman who protested the US bombing of AQ positions, while quietly telling the US he had to be shocked shocked to find gambling at Rick's Café Americana but that was just a necessary political fig leaf. So, the real damage is that it is now reasonable to conclude that it is impossible for the US to keep anything told it in confidence. One very interesting fact is that they didn't come up with smoking guns about secret illegal activities that Cheney authorized. I actually expected to see something like that...if it's there, I haven't seen where it was reported. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wikileaks
Those are just the loudest voices at the moment. I'm wondering, where are the juicy bits that would justify someone to turn whistleblower? Where are the docs to prove that Soylent Green is really people? It would be a shame to waste such an opportunity on something merely embarrassing. -- Matt From: Wayne Eddy darkenf...@gmail.com To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 12:12:23 PM Subject: Re: Wikileaks It is interesting to hear that there is overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks in the US. From the comments I have read on newspaper articles about Wikileaks here in Australia, I would think a majority of people here (maybe about 75%) are supportive. Personally, I think there is good and bad in what Julian Assange and his team are doing, but that the good definitely outweighs the bad. Regards, Wayne Eddy. On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: There seems to be overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks' release of confidential documents and I was wondering how people here (some of whom may have read Brin's Transparent Society) felt about it. I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
WikiLeaks
Doug Pensinger wrote: I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U.S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. I think the worst source of embarrassment .is the use by govs of security-weak softwares and OSes. What if this happened 70 years ago and Manhattan Project was leaked to the nazis (or even the soviets)? Alberto Monteiro Atomic secrets were leaked to the Soviets. Einstein leaked the information that the Nazis were working on the atomic bomb. Good on Al!~) However, in this instance, many of the leaks blew the whistle on government malfeasance and abuse of secrecy. Anyone with clearance to that level is personally responsible and signed an oath. 23-year-old, Bradley Manning, a US army intelligence analyst, e-mailed former hacker, Adrian Lamo, bragging that he leaked the diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, along with a highly classified video of U.S. forces killing unarmed civilians in Baghdad. He is currently being held and charged with transferring classified national defense information to an unauthorized source. He faces court martial and up to 52 years in prison. Jon Mann ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WikiLeaks
Jon wrote: Anyone with clearance to that level is personally responsible and signed an oath. 23-year-old, Bradley Manning, a US army intelligence analyst, e-mailed former hacker, Adrian Lamo, bragging that he leaked the diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, along with a highly classified video of U.S. forces killing unarmed civilians in Baghdad. He is currently being held and charged with transferring classified national defense information to an unauthorized source. He faces court martial and up to 52 years in prison. Jon Mann They teach you in the military that there are such things as illegal orders. I would argue that there should also be illegal secrecy. Keeping a war crime a secret would qualify. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WikiLeaks
On 02/12/2010, at 3:23 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Jon wrote: Anyone with clearance to that level is personally responsible and signed an oath. 23-year-old, Bradley Manning, a US army intelligence analyst, e-mailed former hacker, Adrian Lamo, bragging that he leaked the diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, along with a highly classified video of U.S. forces killing unarmed civilians in Baghdad. He is currently being held and charged with transferring classified national defense information to an unauthorized source. He faces court martial and up to 52 years in prison. Jon Mann They teach you in the military that there are such things as illegal orders. I would argue that there should also be illegal secrecy. Keeping a war crime a secret would qualify. Precisely. If that argument is not successfully made in his defence, then the USA is further down the road to hell than I have feared. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Wikileaks
There seems to be overwhelming sentiment against Wikileaks' release of confidential documents and I was wondering how people here (some of whom may have read Brin's Transparent Society) felt about it. I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
