5 Things You Need To Understand About Wikileaks Before You Celebrate
1. Wikileaks has made the MSM even more powerful.
The most astonishing thing in those cables appears to be that humans often hide their true feelings; that, and the fact that we have nuclear weapons in the Netherlands. (Now it makes sense why so many Dutch donate to my site.)
The thing to observe, however, is that I know those things not because I read Wikileaks, but because I read the NYT. Wikileaks didn't make anything public, in the exact same way as releasing all the clinical trial data didn't make anything public. There's too much information, we have no strategy for approaching it, and what if we read something that violates our prejudices? Fortunately, the MSM knows what you'll want to hear.
This isn't a trivial point. When the MSM reports on what Wikileaks says, we might be skeptical of the MSM but Wikileaks becomes the authority. If Wikileaks/MSNBC says "Russia Says UK Interfered, " then it is a fact that the UK interfered, that's the starting point. But perhaps Russia is wrong or lying; and who knows if Wikileaks isn't lying? I'm supposed to trust Assange-- why? Blondes are more honest? (NOT MY FORENSIC EXPERIENCE.)
And once it's out, you can't unlearn it. Pakistani The News ran a story saying Wikileaked documents reveal the Indian government was covertly supplying Islamist militants in Pakistan and committing atrocities in Kashmir. Whether any of this is true or not I have no idea; but it's not true that it came from Wikileaks. "Well, ok, maybe that didn't come from Wikileaks, but it's still true."
2. This statement is factually false: "Assange wants to expose the lies and corruption of the U.S. government; and the byproduct will be that diplomacy will be much more difficult."
He's not doing it to give to uncover the lies and corruption of the of the U.S. Government-- that's the byproduct. That this will force institutions and departments to wall off and not communicate with one another-- that's the primary goal. That's why Assange doesn't care whether the cables are salacious or revealing, only that there be a lot of them, leaked slowly over time-- to make people too nervous to work. His goal isn't to tell you what's in the truck but to stop trucking. If people know their secrets might be leaked, they'll be reluctant to put their secrets in a truck. Eventually, they will simply stop trucking. When they stop trucking, they go out of business.
Will it work? I doubt it: individual human beings (today) assume they are able to control when and how other people perceive them, which is why even though everyone has cell phone cameras I still see people picking their nose, stealing, beating suspects and masturbating in public.
Even if government employees have the discipline to refrain from using their work computer for personal use (remember Deutch?) they still frequently use their personal computer/email for "light" work ("I'm leaving for Kabul next week, so make sure Jessica doesn't cheat on me.") Bonus: now Google (aka WikiCache) has that information.
3. Wikileaks hasn't made leaking documents easier, it's made leaking documents popular.
There's always been a market for leaked documents-- provided they are worth the risk. But what Assange has done with Wikileaks, complete with a logo and website and a famous frontman, is brand the illegality. Only the dedicated whistleblower will risk prison over an anonymous leak. But how cool is it going to be for a budding narcissist to be a pseudo-anyonymous leak to Wikileaks? What gets leaked becomes much less important than being a leaker.
You think a hipster is going to leak to the NYT? They're closer to the government than their readers, dude. That would be like leaking your senator's emails to your congressman. How you gonna get laid doing that?
The problem is actually Assange, not Wikileaks. It's evident to me that he wanted to become famous, or martyred. This is a man who clings to secrecy so desperately that he has a myriad of cell phones at multiple undisclosed safehouses that he uses right after he gives an interview on CNN.
But by making himself and his site as important a news story as the content of the cables, it inspires others to do the same. Doing what you believe in is never as compelling as doing what's going to get you popular.
Already the WikiClones are gearing up, and so it will be a matter of personal branding whether you leak your headshot to CNN via Leftyleaks or Rightyleaks. And the more such sites pop up, the less anyone will believe anything they "leak," but who cares? Will anyone believe anything about America that comes from IndonesiaLeaks? Won't matter. These become opportunities to offer your own opinions. No one argues about primary sources anymore, we argue the spin about primary sources. Quoting Baudrillard: "Once the sign replaces reality, you're not going to need Wikileaks."
4. The answer to this question: Why is Assange/Wikileaks so popular?
Wikileaks is a symptom of a time looking for an antihero, someone outside the game with enough power to smash the establishment.
You don't care about the exposed secrets; you just want to see the smashing.
That's what forms the basis of our political beliefs: hate. I could at least listen to communism if it was truly about equally distributing the bananas. But is seems much more about hating people with the bananas. A social policy based on hate and resentment is going to get you blood in the streets and then an emperor. A short one.
Most of the desire to see Assange succeed is based on our own impotence. You can't effect any meaningful change in the system, let alone in your own life-- and yes, that order is correct-- and so you're hoping someone else punishes the system for being bigger than you. But meaningful change is done either incrementally, or in revolutions, and I am certain no one has the enthusiasm to riot. At all. You can't muster up civil disobedience, let alone civil unrest. So you hope Assange has the balls to do it. NB: sex charges.
It was the same with Obama. People expected of him, what? To radically alter the United States? He's an entirely competent President, he's doing a reasonable job even as I disagree with almost everything he is and does, but it was obvious to me and it should have been to everyone else that he wasn't Change, but More Of The Same And Less Of Everything.
Things would have been different (NB: not necessarily better) under McCain for the simple reason that Obama didn't have the technical skills necessary to effect a vision that was nebulous to begin with. (Historically, the phrase "surrounds himself with really smart people" is followed in two years by "has lost his vision and is in danger of having a failed presidency.") And when you're unsure on a ship you walk very slowly on the quarterdeck, and soon you don't care so much where it goes as long as you don't get blamed for sinking it. McCain knew how to navigate a ship. Again, I respect that you might not have wanted him as your captain; but the choice was between McCain's slow course to the Islands, or floating around in the Sargasso Sea for four years. America voted: lower the sails. So: Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, secrecy, extension of the tax cuts, identical immigration policy, government deficits, (soon to be) no change in healthcare...
I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed you were goneAssange is a hero to everyone who feels the system doesn't care about them. But as I have indicated with references, graphs, and statistical models, the problem isn't the system, xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx.
Assange's popularity among Americans should be, but isn't, a prompt for self-reflection. "Why do I want this guy to succeed, again?"
5. The winner is Big Business, the loser is you.
Back to the trucking analogy. If the government can't control the cargo or the trucks, it will try to control the roads. Since it can't, it will get private sector industry to do so. Ten years ago internet regulation would have been impossible, but the corporations that could have stopped it-- e.g. Google-- now would love a way around the net neutrality they thought they wanted a decade ago. Bonus: if the government imposes the restrictions, Google et al can't be blamed for making money on it.
---
http://twitter.com/thelastpsych
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
December 13, 2010 4:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
For first-time readers:
"the problem isn't the system, xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx."
translates as
"the problem isn't the system, the problem is you."
Score: 46 (56 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 4:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
America is watching this shit in the same way they watched the top at the end of Inception. Just waiting for a sign, but until then we'll just picker about what "might" happen, what the "meaning" might be.
Meanwhile, MSM is just going to keep on rattling the top every once and a while to keep it tittlating enough for people to believe that "something's about to happen!"
Just need to start walking and stop spinning. Such a simple solution if self-deficiences weren't so prevalent.
Score: 16 (16 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 4:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And by "self-deficiences" I mean "the perception of feeling diminished or cripplingly incomplete." A skewed lens. The self is only diminished by you.
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 5:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jeez Alone, you are always so negative. Can't you see ANY good in this? Perhaps that gov't will be held more accountable? That they won't be able to get away with AS many lies?
"Wikileaks is a symptom of a time looking for an antihero, someone outside the game with enough power to smash the establishment.
You don't care about the exposed secrets; you just want to see the smashing."
Agree to part 1, not part 2 since the content of the secrets exposed are directly related to part 1... the last round of leaks were weak, people realized that. If a bombshell gets dropped people will react differently.
Score: 1 (17 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 6:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Have you been reading Liberation? Ecoo speaks to some of this.
http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/414871-not-such-wicked-leaks
Whether Assange is a narcissist or not is irrelevant in many ways to the larger issues (as entertaining as it is to watch the propaganda and disinfo). Our world is changing, mainly due to technological changes, much in the same way industrialization changed the world. This is about who gets to control the flow of information (and the internet...and of course ultimately money/resources) and define consensual reality on a very large scale. Nostalgia for how (we believe) it used to be or a desire to put the genie back in the bottle is an avoidance of our collective responsibility for the state of our world. So are the people who lie and perpetuate systemic corruption. Assange may have become a symbol and rallying point - both for those who are afraid of change and those who embrace it, but you're actually on many levels echoing Assange's own perspective on wikileaks. He's described it as "scientific news" - as raw data that is then available for analysis. If any of us want to check the sources, wikileaks makes it available and you can decide for yourself if an analysis reflects what the source material says. There is, and always is, the question of trust but that's up for each of us to decide for ourselves and always has been. If it will continue to be so remains to be seen since the choice of who/what to trust depends on being able to get information from more than one source in the first place.
(Rum can help us forget temporarily, though heroine is more effective.)
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 6:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think this post provides an equal-weight counterpoint to the Pakistanis who fell for the hoax. Putting too much stock in surface attributes rather than none at all. However, I think you do have to account for the content with more than a hand wave of trucks and trucking. Assange has openly stated that even though he's going for "maximum political impact," it's up to the public to make sense of everything. Information overload? Potato potahto, a distinction without a difference. It's a net increase in source material, that't for sure.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that authoritarians will get everything they want as a result of this imbroglio. Things are still quite chaotic (they arrested a former Croatian PM last week as a direct result of WL cables) and we haven't seen the end of this yet, forces will rearrange themselves in ways yet to be seen. Makes the news a little funner that way, I suppose.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 7:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe I should lay off the rum and heroine...
That would be "Umberto "Ecco" not Ecoo.
...and what I meant to infer when I wrote - "Nostalgia for how (we believe) it used to be or a desire to put the genie back in the bottle is an avoidance of our collective responsibility for the state of our world. So are the people who lie and perpetuate systemic corruption." - was that the people who lie and perpetuate systemic corruption are also trying to avoid responsibility and being held accountable for their actions.
It's interesting that it seems to be not so much these leaks that have the US government (with a lot of help from friends) trying to get their hands on Assange and shut down wikileaks but rather the threat of the release of documents from a bank.
The problem with the "it's the system vs it's the individual" argument is that it's a false dichotomy - social systems don't exist without people, they are the collective us and created and perpetuated by us. They shape how we behave but how we behave also shapes them. Of course, what we believe often informs how we behave so it's a soft, if particularly insidious, form of manipulation used to sell us all kinds of things we don't need and beliefs that don't make us better off in any real way.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 7:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
1. Yes, the MSM is a problem because it is not being held accountable by regular people, it has its own designs. Those designs do not have to be incompatible with the advancement of human decency. Assange is using the MSM, the MSM is using Assange. The end result is greater transparency, and a lower signal-to-noise ratio. Technology has always lowered the signal-to-noise ratio, until it's raised it, through judicious use of more technology.
2. If you don't think that what Assange and Wikileaks are doing is technologically novel, then you don't know technology. It's never been *possible* for leaks and leaking to become popular, because it's never been possible to ensure that leaking a piece of information would gain distribution. It's always been entirely too easy for large organizations to stamp these out. The Internet's been around for 25 years, but only now is it possible for Wikileaks and similar organizations to exist, only now is the technology mature enough. There's a huge difference between leaking something to bittorrent and handing it over to Wikileaks.
3. Of course Assange is a narcissist and a glory hog. So what? We all have our motivations. Denying them is pie-in-the-sky moralism. At some point, we all have to decide where our efforts best lie, and then apply that effort in a concerted fashion. Life is short, if you're going to make a difference, start doing it now, and if you care to grow psychologically, do it on the way. I would like to argue that any difference made is proportional to the amount of interest it garners, but such an argument is beyond the scope of this comment. I think making a difference is more important in the long run than personal growth. That's my utilitarianism there, take it or leave it.
Score: 18 (20 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 8:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And then there are those that prefer to remain anonymous...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpwVfl3m32w&feature=player_embedded
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 8:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"meaningful change is done either incrementally, or in revolutions"
What about a general collapse, e.g. Russia post '89? Not really a revolution and certainly not incremental.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 9:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I wonder if Alone believes that anything ever changes?
I wonder myself.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 9:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I masturbate in public BECAUSE of all of the cameras.
Score: 23 (23 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 9:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Julian Assange's OKcupid profile was found today.
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/HarryHarrison
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 10:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Interesting perspective. I think you've misrepresented WikiLeaks a bit here, but you're right to say the problem isn't them... it's us. That WikiLeaks exists is really only a big red flag that something is badly wrong with society, democracy, the world... some of the material they leaked - material that seems to have been accepted as genuine even by the US government themselves - wasn't published by media outlets that claim to pursue the truth. The misdeeds exposed in wars have been perpetrated by government elected by a majority of us.
It reminds me of when I have conversations with people about bad working conditions in countries like China, and I tell them that by buying goods made under those conditions they are allowing the situation to continue by funding it... and they protest, insisting that "all they're doing" is buying goods that are available in the marketplace which happen to be cheapest. They seem blind to the reality that when you spend your money, you are implicitly approving of how that money has been allocated to the sourcing of that product or service. Nobody wants to accept responsibility - basically, they don't want to accept the truth.
That's not to say I never buy products from those countries, either. I do, because to choose not to would be to put myself at a distinct commercial disadvantage to everyone I'm competing with in the employment/life marketplace (by driving up my personal costs in a market where everyone choosing to buy the cheap-bloodied-goods could undercut me)... but I resent that that's the case, I gladly support any campaign that challenges it, and if someone came up to me in the street and remarked on it I'd have to accept that yes - I am funding that malpractice by my choices. I am. That is my responsibility as a consumer. That I have a justification in my own mind doesn't change that.
Similarly, as a society we must accept that the world around us is shaped ultimately by what we choose to accept, or condone by the funding implicit in our consumer choices. There is no "them" to fix the problems of *our* world. Those people on TV advocating change are flesh and blood like we are. They have to pay their mortgage too. Our world is what we make it, and those who insist on soothing the troubled conscience of people who don't want to grow up enough to face the consequences of their own choices deserve the wrath of everyone who does for facilitating the horrific consequences we are going to face for our oversights.
Score: 18 (18 votes cast)
December 13, 2010 11:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
While I understand these points, I don't believe they have anything to do with Wikileaks, but rather human nature. Your point seems to truly be "this doesn't change human nature."
No shit?
I agree; but it does indeed change things in a sense. You often talk about choosing to identify yourself by what you do rather than what you say. This is a sort of fuck you to the national narcissistic identity we have. Oh yeah? You're the good guys? Because you say you are, or because you *actually* are.
And, to an observant person, it does seem to reveal far more bias in the MSM than people are comfortable admitting, which in itself is a good thing. This is all just part of an ongoing anthropological process.... which, I believe, is a positive one.
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So the only reason anyone would do anything you can't do is in order to unintentionally get their foot pissed on, eh Alone?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
At this rate we should have shoe spam in the comments here by morning!
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 2:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Most of the desire to see Assange succeed is based on our own impotence. You can't effect any meaningful change in the system, let alone in your own life-- and yes, that order is correct-- and so you're hoping someone else punishes the system for being bigger than you. But meaningful change is done either incrementally, or in revolutions, and I am certain no one has the enthusiasm to riot. At all. You can't muster up civil disobedience, let alone civil unrest. So you hope Assange has the balls to do it. NB: sex charges."
This paragraph sucked major ballz. Why do you feel so impotent?
Why are you so certain 'no one has the enthusiasm to riot. at all.'? or desire and stamina to work for meaningful change?
Why do you insist on blindness?
1. You are a very intelligent individual and I really enjoy coming here to read your analysis, but that is no rallying cry; I'm not sure you could get anyone to go to any type of battle with you talking this way. This is a very negative way that you write; you condemn your fellow man and call him heartless, he's got no courage, you say, he's worthless.
I can tell by the way you write that you are a young man- young in his 3rd or 4th decade and surely you know by now that man is full of courage and power, you know this because you can see you've got your own. but you know also that it stays locked when you condemn it in such a way, when someone tells you that you have no power. If you want change, if you want power to change, give power; don't tell your shy brother that he's got no enthusiasm. Lift him up, empower. People don't lack courage, it's in there- it's just been beat down.
And forgotten:
Rewind U.S. 50 years and take some solace in the many individuals who worked together to improve their circumstances and radically change this country i.e. civil rights movement. I hope you might acknowledge this example- of everyday people leading each other to self-empowerment.
2. You're looking at 'Assange' in entirely the wrong way. He is here to tell us that we can use our balls, too. He is one individual leading a very small group of individuals. who are effecting meaningful change. He has moved mountains. So can you.
3. You are certain no one has the enthusiasm to riot. Okay, what do you call all of the computer geniuses and junior geniuses that make up the wikileaks organization? or the 'anonymous' hackers organization that shut down Mastercard/Visa for a day ? These people are rioters. Man, you got some major blindspots. Come on, doctor, heal thyself.
Score: 4 (26 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 4:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
In reply to Anonymous's "He's described it as "scientific news" - as raw data that is then available for analysis. If any of us want to check the sources, wikileaks makes it available and you can decide for yourself if an analysis reflects what the source material says."
That's nonsense. There's no such thing as a raw datum that means anything. There's no way Wikileaks can tell us everything (how are they gonna record conversations and the subtext thereof?), and in selecting what to tell, they necessarily insert their own spin/meaning. They can make certain analyses less credible, but they're not dispassionately revealing The Truth. They're just shifting the range of credible analyses towards their own disposition. Call me when Wikileaks releases some internal documents from Greenpeace or Attac.
And in reply to VinceG's "the MSM is a problem because it is not being held accountable by regular people, it has its own designs. Those designs do not have to be incompatible with the advancement of human decency."
That's lazier nonsense. Of course the MSM is being held accountable by regular people. The MSM want their media to be bought by regular people, and regular people are validating the success of this endeavour by buying it! If regular people wanted to advance 'human decency' (assuming we could all agree on what that means), the MSM would produce tomes of whiggish optimism or some other form of textual 'human decency'. What other form of accountability do you expect? What designs do you think the MSM has beyond market share? Presuming a conspiracy is a convenient (by which I mean simple, by which I mean foolish) way to dodge your own responsibility: the problem isn't the system, the problem is you.
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 6:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And one can easily tell you're 16.
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 6:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't understand the distinction between 'them' (Wikileaks) and 'us' (individuals). There's nothing to distinguish Assange, his motives, his pathology, etc. from any one of "us".
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 8:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are wrongly assuming that:
1-he would like people to riot
2-he is anti-system (quote from the author: "The problem is not the system, the problem is you)
3-that he should be some kind of revolutionary leader, to lead us to a New Social Order by rioting, killing and spilling blood on the street
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 8:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
There is so much wrong with this article.
Firstly, Wikileaks has not MADE the MSM more powerful. It has exposed how powerful it is. How obvious is it to people now? There is no denying it anymore.
I always get suspect when people say things like Assange is a narcissist looking for attention. Character attacks should not enter into the discussion. That is a bullying tactic. One that I have not really seen him use.
When people are being lied to and secret deals are being made that are no longer in the interest of the majority, democracy is no longer in action. This is the problem. Not wikileaks.
Not the people. The minority who uses deception. Deception is the enemy here. Corruption.
The only problem I see with Wikileaks as an organization is that a bunch of paranoid, out of touch, power-hungry people are getting poked and prodded. Will the people see them as such or will they just bow down and blame themselves, yet again?
Score: 8 (20 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 8:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, I guess I was wrong about Alone being Assange. Back to my Billy Joel theory. Or my Charles Manson theory.
Score: 14 (16 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 8:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The problem with the whole thing is that none of the so-called major leaks have actually revealed anything new. I'm told they make the war in Iraq/Afghanistan look bad. Wasn't the casual torture and humiliation of POW's enough? Or the rape and murder of a 14-year-old? And all the other things we've been bombarded with.
What, you didn't know the goverment is lying to you? How is a couple of leaked documents is going to stop them?
Wikileaks isn't going to change anything.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 9:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"His goal isn't to tell you what's in the truck but to stop trucking." Yes. The odds of which are nil.
"That's what forms the basis of our political beliefs: hate." Yes.
"Things would have been different (NB: not necessarily better) under McCain."
No. (1) Inexperienced youngish media darling with no core beliefs not so different from tired old former media darling with no core beliefs; (2) Takes no account of structural effects (which party controls which branches when). This way we get Clinton1/Clinton2; that way we get Reagan1/Dubya2--see? different.
"(soon to be) no change in healthcare"
Yes. Actuarial tables suggest that the conservative justices will outlast Obama even if he's re-elected; past caselaw suggests that Kennedy will vote to find the mandate unconstitutional.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 9:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I suppose telling yourself it's hopeless is a damned fine way of abdicating any responsibility for doing something about it.
Score: 2 (14 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
medsvtherapy- the author of this blog is Sergey F. Lasch, the estranged second son of Christopher Lasch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Lasch
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
has anyone been paying any attention at all? It is obvious that Alone is artist Jayson Musson.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
customs
christopher lasch did not have a son named sergey as far as I can tell
http://www.nndb.com/people/918/000047777/
(if you're trolling sorry, I thought your previous post about this issue was an absolute work of art as far as trolling goes)
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is a picture of alone:
http://space1026.com/site_images/405782680_l.jpg
I guess psychiatry pays
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"(soon to be) no change in healthcare"
Yes. Actuarial tables suggest that the conservative justices will outlast Obama even if he's re-elected; past caselaw suggests that Kennedy will vote to find the mandate unconstitutional."
Good luck with that. It is well known that Kennedy has indicated he will retire at the close of Supreme Court 2012. Grossly liberal LA County Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito has been rumored to be a favorite to replace- Court's first Asian etc. very good chance he will survive Senate vote.
So, no, you will be required to buy healthcare insurance, effective 2014.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not troll. I am Uruguayan, this is not one and the same. I take offense at your statement.
Sergey is the son of Lasch in the same way that Madonna is the daughter of Silvio Anthony Ciccone. Get me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer)
It's called a name change.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 12:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"2. This statement is factually false:"
No, that statement is actually false. If you had taken the time to actually read his essay, increased transparency is and always has been his goal. The simply proposed that the leaking of documents would have one of -two- possible outcomes. Either 1: The governments would reform and become more open, or 2: What you said, they would be come so secretive and paranoid that they cease to function effectively.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 3:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Probably not, but if anyone is not familiar with Lasch they should check him out. TLP's arguments are mirror images of his in a lot of ways.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 4:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A slightly off topic:
The LAst Psychiatrist, what are your thoughts on The Libertarian movement, free market gurus such as Rothbard and Rand?
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 5:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
1. Anyone who asserts McCain would have been more effective in a democrat-controlled congress is simply being unrealistic and his point fails. I can only conclude political orientation overrides any meaningful commentary on this subject. Note I am not arguing any particular political orientation myself. If the election had returned opposite results, the argument would continue to stand. I'm talking about fantastical thinking.
2. Anyone who has to take this type of thinking even further, and necessarily posit BOTH a John McCain AND a republican-controlled 2008 election in order to make a point, is most certainly not making a cogent argument. Even more "if a were not a, then b would be the only logical outcome." Except "a" was "a."
3. This 70 year old man with multiple melanomas picked a demonstrably ignorant running mate "a heartbeat away from the presidency" and did so through a shamefully truncated investigation. The position that McCain knows "how to navigate a ship" cannot be taken seriously. He couldn't even keep his republican cohorts in line during the campaign.
Even a cursory examination of McCain's post election activity proves that point. Or, perhaps, "how to navigate a ship" merely refers to the ability of the man to do anything and say anything to win an election? In addition to the irresponsible pick of Palin as a running mate, he has forged a recent history of reversing his position on immigration, gun control, DADT and climate change.
"And complete the danged fence" indeed.
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 5:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
McCain is a cooler, possibly the right's Joe Liberman, and who gives a hoot about politics otherwise, unless it has something to do with WL in this thread. I'm looking at you, Daniel.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 6:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It reminds me of that quote of the movie "Network" (1976) where a TV anchor goes freestyle denouncing the power and control of the media, he is summoned by the board who tells him sth like: "you have meddled with the forces of nature and you - will - atone!"
Assange is just one visible example of a systemic problem with growing and involuntary transparency combined with light-speed and global digital distribution. He is just the first one of many more to come.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 6:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Really, you name yourself after the character and then ruin the reference with mealy-mouthed "uihhh, somethin liek..."? Bravo.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 6:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
apologies, this was a sloppy quote.
here it is in it full glory - memory wasn't too bad.
short version:
"Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE!"
Long version:
Arthur Jensen: [bellowing] You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE!
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 6:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
" If you had taken the time to actually read his essay, increased transparency is and always has been his goal."
I don't know what Assange's goal is, but I am surprised that someone takes his statement of his goal as proof of what the goal is. His statement may be truthful, or it may not, but people lie about their aims frequently.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 6:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's a lot of dumbasses here, I wouldn't recommend using your real name.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 6:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
To be accurate, he's facing them with a 3 way choice.
1. Leak.
2. Go out of business.
3. Stop conspiring against the public.
I'm not sure what mixture of 2 and 3 he's aiming for, but he knows the option is there.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 8:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I am surprised that someone takes his statement of his goal as proof of what the goal is."
Well, I'm out to totally destroy Western Civilization. By posting on other lonely old weirdos' blogs.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 8:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Check out item 4, paragraph 6. Reading. It does a brain good.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 9:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ben, is this one of the ones you warned me about?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 14, 2010 10:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am so jealous! I alone an excluded from this well-concealed insider knowledge!
:(
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 12:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm pretty sure the author of this blog is a woman named Lisa -- www.vainencounters.com, etc -- and I wonder if she is much amused at the much-assumed male pronoun.
But, being a very recent reader, I may be wrong, overlooking some more definitive hint that the obvious few I've found.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 2:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
http://www.alternet.org/story/149136/america%3A_why_r_your_peeps_so_dum?page=entire
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 10:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So The Last Psychiatrist would rather not have anyone even try to expose government corruption because it wouldn't do any good and they are all just *!*!*NARCISSISTS*!*!* (surprise surprise) anyway so why bother.
And then blames the reader for all of this.
Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 11:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Is the real message here to buy stock in Google?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 2:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The real message here is that TLP has no faith in humanity. why this is, we can only speculate...I think there are several reasons. I will now list those reasons in no particular order.
1. a. TLP claims to be a doctor in America. In order to get paid for their work, doctors in America are forced to deal day in and day out with criminals, also known as health insurance companies (unless said doctors choose to exist outside the system and accept only cash payments or barter for pastries and livestock).
b. Because TLP deals with criminals every day that he works and is paid by criminals, he must also face the fact, quite frequently, that he submits willingly to a system of corruption and brokenness. Comparably, the non-doctor population does not have to face the fact that they submit to a system of corruption and brokenness as often. as a result, this population of people are not, on the whole, cynical misanthropes.
c. TLP is angry that he and most people in America willingly submit to a system of corruption and brokenness and that said individuals seemingly do not care.
d. Because of this, he has concluded that people are stupid and worthless.
2. There are no other reasons why TLP has lost complete faith in humanity.
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 2:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"1. a. TLP claims to be a doctor in America."
Um, the only thing TLP claims to be is a douchebag in America...
ZING!
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 3:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Firstly, I really think you should show more respect for TLP and refrain from calling him or anyone for that matter such a word as 'douchebag'. TLP takes the time to write informed and interesting opinion pieces on many subjects that you find confusing and are unable to synthesize. He is not being paid to do this. Show more respect if you are not going to donate to him. If you are in fact donating, then I guess maybe you might feel you have a right to call him names.
Secondly, you are right that it is unverified that the author of this blog is a medical doctor, but in the case that he is, I think you should be doubly respectful toward him. Time was that people in this country held doctors in very high esteem and paid them proper and more respect than they would to other people like their mailman or banker or neighbor (unless the neighbor was a doctor). I think it is atrocious that you would call a doctor a douchebag. You are probably the type of person who would relish the opportunity to sue a doctor for malpractice.
Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 4:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He never claimed to be a douchebag in any of his posts. You are stupid.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 7:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"2. There are no other reasons why TLP has lost complete faith in humanity."
Oh come ON. I "lost complete faith in humanity" and I have only a GED; surely an advanced degree of any kind, let alone a medical degree, is NOT required to "los[e] complete faith in humanity." All you need to do is be awake when you deal with "the public" -- I'm sure drug store cashiers don't have a lot of "faith in humanity" either.
By the way, to spell this out, if TLP is really as he seems here then he's full of shit sometimes but I feel somewhat akin to him temperamentally and I'd probably agree with him on most temperament-based things. But I still prefer bourbon, except for the cogeners (and then only the next day).
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
December 15, 2010 7:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh and by the way, I claim to be a douchebag. Suck it up, twit.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 16, 2010 10:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone is one of the few bloggers who post material that I must read twice (at least), before I understand the message.
That's a good thing. Postings by morons are easily understood just by scanning the page, and easily forgotten.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
December 16, 2010 12:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
read more than one article dumbass
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 16, 2010 5:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I absolutely agree with TLP -- Asange is a symptom of our impotence. But not just on the personal level, but governmentally as well. So many decisions are made by beaureucrats, our laws are 2000+ pages long and most of us don't speak legalese well enough to read them, and politicians are frankly accountabe more to party bosses and large donors then the people who voted for them. To put it bluntly, we're an oligarchy mascarading as a republic. And as in every other oligarchy, you don't really get much of a say.
That's one reason that people like assange are popular -- they're really the only ones with the raw power to hold the oligarchs feet to the fire. And even then, it's largely a symbolic gesture -- sure they're outed as A-holes who don't care what the little people think, but it's not like there's a way around the elitest superstructure so that we will be able to tell them no. I knew that we were torturing at Gitmo the first time I read about how "kind" they were being to the detainees. Anybody who seriously believed the story that the MSM printed about the guards interrogating them by bringing them ice cream was an idiot -- even if they hadn't at the same time banned the red cross. But one redneck from missouri isn't going to change a torture policy. Hell all the people reading this couldn't have changed it. Because there are 300,000,000 Americans, you'd need at least a couple of million people to get anyone to acknowledge that the American people don't love the idea. not gonna happen.
So go assange, and at least make them fear public embaressment. Won't do anything, but it's at least a reminder that we are supposed to have a voice.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 16, 2010 7:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Before anyone gets any idea that Wikileaks is doing any real damage they need to read the following. If you are truly shocked by what wikileaks is putting out then you are incredibly naive......
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 7:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
There are two types of people on the internet. Those who put their name to their actions. And those that don't. Julian is the former.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 11:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Unrelated to this particular thread's discussion, but does anyone know how to get the full feed from this blog's RSS? I'd like to read it on my Kindle, but the feed (https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/atom.xml) only displays the intro to the article.
Anyone else come across this or know a solution?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 1:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Are we, or are we not better off knowing, and learning from, the ways in which our governments lie to us? My personal belief is that there are two kinds of government: bad government and worse government.
Given that we are a race of shallowly civilized beings, it is too much to hope that we could achieve government that is truly good - that is, government that has as it's primary motivation the just and optimal well being of the governed.
The recent spectacle of indigent members of society voting (ignorantly and to their own detriment) to preserve the well-being of the well-off presents a very good example of why we need whistle blowing, at every level of government, to allow the ignorant and misinformed to plainly see the contempt and disregard in which they are held by those they elevated to power.
Whatever his motivation, Julian Assange did humanity a service that is exceeded only by that of Bradley Manning the young soldier who is believed to have disclosed the information. Instead of being held in solitary confinement, Manning deserves to be rewarded for his patriotism.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 12:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wikileaks should release part 2 of the cognitive kill switch article. We know you've been hiding it from us as part of your mercantilist pirate plot.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 1:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
that youtube video from anon should totally have ended with "disregard that i suck cocks"
but seriously
it's a surprise that alone is inspired by network? he quoted most of the "mad as hell" speech in a post about six months ago.
if little tacos are called "taquitos", what are little judges?
it comes down to johnson's definition of liberal and conservative--would you rather deal with the current problems, or introduce new ones? are blacks actually better off as a result of the civil rights movement, or are whites just more comfortable with their own history?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 1:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Oh come ON. I "lost complete faith in humanity" and I have only a GED"
How were you able to bold the "I" in your second sentence? I tried to copy it here, but when I pasted the sentence, the bolded letter did not copy as bolded.
Tell me, how do you bold your letters? I want to use the bold option- I am interested in making my comments more emphatic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 5:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I (without extra spaces)
for italic use an i instead of b
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 5:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
DAMMIT. It previewed as an example. Anyway, I found this for you, it looks clear enough to me. (I only memorized 4 or 5 myself.)
http://www.rewritables.net/htmltagchart.htm
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 22, 2010 7:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Asange is an idiot. He didn't see a whore would be deployed. It was two of them.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 22, 2010 9:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Assange is just a human being, same as the rest of us (he may be smarter/stupider, etc but he's still just human). I've started to wonder if the reason so many people need unrealistic heroes (that are infallible and superhuman) is because of what happens if we recognize that it's just other humans who shape the world and do "heroic" (or "demonic") things, we are confronted by our own responsibility and complicity regarding the "evil" we like to pretend is all someone else's fault (so we can continue to see ourselves as "good" and blameless/not responsible).
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 23, 2010 8:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Five plus one things you should consider before profiling a hero:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 25, 2010 10:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Doctors don't deserve more respect than other people. You're a retard.
When it comes to matters of medical opinion, then maybe their opinion merits more weight, of course that all depends on the type of medicine (I would not trust a psychiatrists opinion about chrons disease treatment, and I would not trust any doctor who is showing signs that his info/knowledge is dated).
People like you are the reason so many patients have complications. You treat doctors like gods and refuse to take responsibility for yourself, your health.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 11, 2011 5:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Many people wear the jeans through the year for it is practical. A person without a pair of true religion jeans was just like a sentence has no verb. All kinds of jeans are hot sell in the true religion sale store online. Surely, you will find the one you love to such as seven jeans, diesel jeans, and skinny jeans, mens jeans and so on.
http://www.true-religion-jeans-sale.com/
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
January 11, 2011 5:18 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Many people wear the jeans through the year for it is practical. A person without a pair of true religion jeans was just like a sentence has no verb. All kinds of jeans are hot sell in the true religion sale store online. Surely, you will find the one you love to such as seven jeans, diesel jeans, and skinny jeans, mens jeans and so on.
http://www.true-religion-jeans-sale.com/
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 9, 2011 6:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I hope all spamers die a slow hideous death.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 13, 2011 10:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful! I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
August 25, 2011 2:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Houses and cars are not cheap and not everyone can buy it. But, home loans are invented to support different people in such kind of cases.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 26, 2012 11:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It took me about 30 seconds to fill in that blank.
I hope this means the message is starting to sink in.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Comments