Manning is being charged with aiding the enemy. And I say it's true. But who is the enemy?
Thanks to another famous leaker, Daniel Ellsberg, we have the Pentagon papers where we learn that following the Tet Offensive in Vietnam US military was concerned about further troop escalations in Vietnam because those may be needed back home for "civil disorder control." When Bush Sr took office he had a national security assessment drafted, and it was leaked to Maureen Dowd. We learn in it that they were concerned about their various conflicts in Latin America and how in the future it was important to win quickly and decisively because if they don't and the war is protracted this could undermine political support at home. Reagan's various atrocities, including recently disclosed information that revealed he basically signed off on genocide in Guatemala, were protracted enough that the public was souring on them. This is the real threat. We are the ones that can thwart their behavior. If we remain in the dark they have nothing to fear, but if we know what they are doing we may object and hold them accountable. Bradley Manning is informing us.
As far as aiding Islamic terrorists or those that would do us violence, or maybe putting lives in danger, well no, the leaks didn't do that. They did inform Americans. That's why he's dangerous. Richard Nixon called Daniel Ellsberg the most dangerous man in America. That was correct.
21 comments:
Jon,
I couldn't agree more with irony of what you say! Well said.
If one drills down it becomes clear that the issue is *party * government. like all organizations the first priority is the survival and success of the entity .
In short this basic concept runs across all parties.
The resulting self generating process applies to BOTH SIDES although the degree of individual culpability can vary.
i.e. in this case because the the enemy to the the current administration is the opportunist bent of opposition generally ( i.e. the *disproportional * power abuse of self interested pressure groups and their extreme partisanship that goes beyond the ). Their focus isn't so much as good governance but stopping the elected administration in order to ultimately replace it with one that meets their self interests.
Consequently we have a POTUS whose *elected * platform is irrelevant or subject to the disproportional abuses of micro (myopic) self interest. And clearly any leaks plays into the hands of 'their enemy'.
I would argue that the US system while sort of, well intentioned it has been corrupted by these self interests and delivers the worst of both worlds. A financial arms race to the bottom … the financial commoditifacation of government one where the plutocratic golden rule applies (i.e. he who has the gold rules). This excludes the average middle of the road voter, the statistical (compromise) mean. The fundamental necessity for any semblance of real democracy.
As a consequence the administration is ham strung to an existing shit sandwich and has to be more concerned fighting off spoiler opposition than implementing the above public VOTED for policies. The more partisan opposition the more the Administration feels it has to deal with the electoral unpalatable in as much secrecy as possible. To not do so automatically gives advantage to the opposition to misinterpret/misrepresent the actions and dishonestly claiming or implying that under their governance the problem wouldn't exist< THEY HAVE THE SOLUTION> (sic). In reality that solution is spin and misdirection.
When the viability of this strategy is the conditioned emotionally based millisecond concentration span of the public (i.e. a week is a long time in politics) . More misdirection and yes another level of self serving secrecy and control.
Governments in the west today aren't tensions between the people where every opinion is equal it's institutionalised (myopic) tools of a few V the well being (ultimately survival) of many.
Jon
To me here is overwhelming evidence of all that we've been saying about fire arms.
http://www.propublica.org/article/what-researchers-learned-about-gun-violence-before-congress-killed-funding
any questions?
Overwhelming? 10.2 deaths per 10,000 Americans is overwhelming? What percentage within that sliver of a percentage is suicide or accidental death? Even add in domestic violence if you wish too and that is your overwhelming evidence? This study adds ZERO to anything. Responsible gun owners already understand and respect the extremely low risks involved with gun ownership. We properly store our weapons, we train our loved ones and we look out for any unstable person or persons in our lives that may do harm through the vehicle of a gun, truck, alcohol, drugs or whatever vehicle.
Even if your point is directed toward saving this study which I believe should have zero gov't funding - again this study uncovered that a gun in the home increases the chance of that gun being used - holy shit you gotta be kidding me that is an amazing finding!!!!! I would have never thought that would be the case. I know that smoking cigarettes reduces your chances of cancer, drinking heavily has no negative affect and owning a car reduces your chance of getting into an accident or dying from a car accident (10.5 per 10,000 believe). Of course a gun in any home increases some risks, but a gun in an unstable home increases the risks far more - so inside that home, what is the family structure, family condition (maker or taker), are drugs and alcohol an issue? My guess is you'll find a very dis functional home that happens to have a gun will make up a large - very large percentage.
Moronic study, where in this study does it outline the crime level or crime rating surrounding the area of a gun owner. Did they buy a gun for protection in a crime riddled area? How many of these crimes were committed when the home owner was in the home? What was the percentage of break ins at the homes that did not have a gun within a half mile radius? I have several thousand dollars in guns at my home - I could let you in my house, tell you what room you can find my cache of weapons and I would be shocked if you could find them in 5 minutes. If you found their hiding place and assuming that you didn't trip the silent alarm in place, unless you have my fingerprint how will you get to them? My wife and I can have a loaded weapon in our hand in about 10 seconds or less, but access by anyone else is severely limited to nearly impossible - thats individual responsibility of being a gun owner for me.
If someone picks up a gun then places that gun in their mouth and they pull the trigger - they are already F'd up and probably better off in the ground. Now I think the important study is not what vehicle was used to end their life, but rather understanding why they pulled the trigger in the first place. If you have a gun in the house and you have a violent spouse, your an idiot for staying there #1 and more of an idiot if you don't relocate said gun. If you decide to cheat on your spouse who is a gun owner in their bed - well same as above. If someone has mental issues - same as above.
The arrogance (at minimum) is the idea that one group of people believe that they know more than everyone else and furthermore they make rules/laws that violate the constitution and freedom to save us all from ourselves.
I just had the coolest gun safe installed in the RV last weekend so I just increased my risks on the road too - oohhh no!
Chad,
"If someone picks up a gun then places that gun in their mouth and they pull the trigger - they are already F'd up and probably better off in the ground"
Seriously?
"The arrogance (at minimum) is the idea that one group of people believe that they know more than everyone else and furthermore they make rules/laws that violate the constitution and freedom to save us all from ourselves."
We all think we know more than everyone else, or at least or position is superior to those around us. That's why we debate, discuss, and engage with others. Freedom is balancing act between often times mutually exclusive desires and objectives. Just because you disagree with someone's position on guns (which you are obviously quite passionate about) doesn't mean that it is arrogant on their part to have a different view than yours.
Perhaps you could persuade them with open dialog and kindness. Otherwise they might get worried and decide to try and take your guns away ;-)
Chad, you ask lots of good questions, but the reason we don't have all the answers on that is because funding was cut. Don't you think it's worthwhile to understand these things? If a gun in the home really does make you less safe, or if it greatly increased the likelihood that you or your children would commit suicide, wouldn't you want to know? It seems the NRA doesn't want to know.
Jonathan,
Maybe you have a point, but America today is soft. Personal responsibility is no longer what it is about - today it is all about what person or groups of people another group can blame for their crappy life and how best to take what they have by law or force to hopefully make them less happy and that group a slightly more happy.
Yes - if you grab a deadly weapon, you stick that weapon in your mouth and pull the trigger - I have no tears for that person. My Grandfathers twin brother took his own life and to this day my grandfather calls him a coward for doing so. Today a kid commits suicide and everyone gets blamed, but the kid - those bullies, the teacher was too hard, he got teased beacuse he wore girls clothes, his parents pushed him too hard and of course it is the guns fault for being in the room with bullets - damn that gun.
I can handle different views all day long as long as you don't make a law/force me to believe in your view.
JC,
It is not the function of the gov't to give money toward that kind of research. If you go out and raise the money based on what your looking to prove then do it, but no that is not what gov't is supposed to do at all - never.
Besides - if that is what you want to have happen then logically an equal portion of the funding should be given to the mirror view to conduct their own research to refute the slanted version created by a single focused group.
Its like your 'money doesn't buy you happiness' research stuff. I have yet to find a single solitary person who agrees with you - probably in the hundreds at this point. I would like a list of the questions and the people answering the questions because I think it is a complete lie. The questions must have been framed in such an odd way for to help falsify the data because I am not finding anyone yet who has told me that they do not get additional happiness from their stuff and want bigger stuff.
Chad,
Note: the content below is not directly specifically at the gun control issue, just a general observation I've been thinking about the past number of months on a wide range of issues. Also, I do not mean to direct this specifically at you, I think we are all in the same boat to a large extent....
This quid-pro-quo competing research idea has always confused me. It seems to me that everyone on a particular side of an issue assumes that any findings which disagree with their side is automatically slanted and biased. Therefore, contrary findings are always looked upon with suspicion and "biased". Yet information which agrees which our side clearly is not biased, but simply "true".
No one ever finds a study that agrees with their point of view and then says "this study is of course, biased - to get the complete picture of what's going on, we need to fund a study which is slanted the *other* way" as if every issue and question out there, and every piece of supporting data can be couched in terms of "my side" and "the other side".
I think I would tend to call this "sore loser syndrome" because when data contrary to our point of view is presented, it obviously must be biased. The evidence? The conclusion doesn't line up with mine.
True, we are all biased and have views and options which cloud our judgment and thinking. But when honestly trying to seek answers to questions we tend to be objective in our endeavors so as to eliminate these biases. Yet we usually automatically downgrade any results that do not meet our expectations as not objective inquiry, but simply weak and misguided arguments. However, if the results were more in line with our expectations, we do not apply the same critical eye....
Granted, the same piece of data can be explained completely differently depending on our starting assumptions and world view. But it's not the data which is in question, only the results which can support widely different and often contradictory conclusions.
So a question to pose to the audience - are there times and instances when we could or *should* be skeptical of the analysis done by research? Are there times we should not?
Jonathan,
"F'd up..." define please.
Also not that 1 in 5 people suffer a severe depression (suicidal) event in their lives.
1 in 20 suffer a 'mental illness' (be careful not to display everyday [mass]ignorance/prejudice about what that means; nature, frequency ( one off episodic),intensity and danger to others.
e.g. some one who has Bipolar isn't necessarily a danger to others or them selves one only needs a very small number of events to justify the diagnosis.
Nor are they "f'd up".
That is a lot of people at risk. What is missed by Chad is that 'sheer availability of instant death(release) is a factor.
i.e. note the significant decrease in female suicides in UK once the government changed the lethality of gas supplies.
Chad's micro focus on HIMSELF as the standard by which to interpret the statistics. He simply isn't.
If we were to plot him on a statistical distribution graph he wouldn't be the statistical mean, or even that close to it.
i.e. he tends to generalize by assumption that he (experientially and circumstantially)so.
It is way more complex than that.
He has the same problem with conceptualising stats as the general public. i.e. they tend to confuse the generality (cumulative nature) with individuality.... (seeing the woods for the trees)....it doesn't happen in my (limited) experience therefore the others are at fault.
If I've learned anything from life it is that I am fortunate on many levels and not to project that on the majority.(i.e. judge them harshly because they aren't as fortunate as I).
We are talking about the CDC One of the 3 top America's medical research organizations. I'm very reluctant to bag their findings.
Examinator,
The "f'd" up was a quote from Chad. I think suicide and mental illness is a tragedy, and assigning blame to someone who takes their own life misses the point...
My bad I guess I was talking more widely than you. Perhaps I should have addressed the comment to Chad.
Chad,
Let's be clear You your wife , me my wife etc are irrelevant personalising the conversation all the time is either standard misdirection because of lack of understanding (stats included) of anything beyond your immediate experience or simply fear that you might lose the point (as in 20...Love) .
Ultimately you tend to reduce everything into a competition Your views V everyone else as though there is something visceral and lethal at stake.... There isn't.
I find understand that the Tea Party (sic) has some genuine issues but what I object to is their methodology of their reasoning. In your focus someone is always to blame or is obstructing your vision of the future for EVERYONE.
What I find most concerning is that you/ tea baggers always assume that you way is right and to hell with those who may have better knowledge/expertise on any given topic .
As I indicated in countless posts no one, not me is trying to ban ANYTHING much less Firearms. But you and your travellers still insist on myopic reasoning. You address all issues as though they were in discrete bubbles.... they simply aren't. You BS on about we should find out why there is so much firearm violence yet you won't recognize the facts that are staring you in the face. i.e. poverty and exploitation ensuring that these people can't get out. This is clear from every revolution since the dawn of humanity. You then say it's their fault they're too lazy or have no personal responsibility. Again the facts are there. In which case you merely slag off a CDC investigation.
The reality is your lack of understanding means that you don't have the skills to know good research from bad.
In answer to Jonathan's questions about when to believe in or not in research it is based on who is making the research and understanding what is being said rather than what you in your ideological dogmatism want it to say.
i.e. you focused on one stat that's on it's own , with out context, means little.
You really should stop fighting the Civil war ... the real source of the government's coming to subjudicate the people.
Read the crime stats in your area odds on they don't justify your home defence paranoia either. A recent right wing think tank did stats on violence in cities what the stats showed was that you and yours are even less likely to be a victim than 10 in 10000 that bothered you as being trivial.
I lived in a major city (?) in SC even ran a NHW without a fire arms.
Yes motor vehicles are a problem too and it should be addressed but that doesn't mean taking anyone's vehicle either.
Nor does focusing more on needs rather than wants mean back to grass huts and old women bearing their floppy boobs as they grind the seeds.
That CDC needs to be finished and publiclly funded as it is a WHOLE OF COMMUNITY ISSUE.
The only that can be said of the stats is that it and some of the facts like actual break in etc don't support the need for wide spread firearms and that they have an increased risk factor.
This begs a series of intelligent questions ranging from are we as a whole of society prepared to accept the associated risks (they do come with risks and they are beyond dispute) ?
You personally and how careful you are is irrelevant YOU AREN' T the average or even any where near it.
I might be a responsible person with my comments on African Americans but I am not the average either. So if there is a law that stops me from racist statements I'll live with that.
Jonathan,
"I think I would tend to call this "sore loser syndrome" because when data contrary to our point of view is presented, it obviously must be biased. The evidence? The conclusion doesn't line up with mine."
Your probably 100% right on this one - here is the thing. This study which probably cost millions proved that having a gun in a house increases the chances by a sliver of a percent that you might get killed by that gun or that someone might take their own life by that gun - okay not a big shocker at all - in the least, but I accept that risk and so does 99% of all legal gun owners out there. It is the same risk of dying or being killed in a car accident so when folks want to limit my ability to legally own a firearm because they don't like it and use 10 in 10,000 as the reason they can take my freedoms away - it does piss me off.
The point is simple, don't own a gun if you don't want one, but stop taking them from the law (for the most part) fearing citizens that what one. Publish the findings if you wish and hell we will even send an unarmed police officer to your home when someone breaks in if you want - that is your choice and that is the point here. Yep - a crazy might get his/her hands on a gun and do bad things - it will happen sorry in advance, but damn that is life today. People get cancer, they die in car wrecks, people die all sorts of ways that are tragic - can't save them all and 10 in 10,000 is nothing sort of nothing.
To the point - forget about that stupid study and find out why kids put a gun in their mouth in the first place. I have my unfounded theories on that one, but you say 1 in 5 have some mental disorder of somekind - well we will just have to agree to disagree on that number, but hey find out what their major malfuntion is. America has become one gigantic excuse - if you want something to be wrong with you then go to the doctor, spill your problems out and sure enough they will diagnose you with something for sure.
Anyhow - study the why instead of the what.
Chad,
I never said 1 in 5 have a mental illness, but I would agree with you that to fix the solution, we should focus on the people who do ill with guns, not the guns themselves. There's too many out there, and no effective way to change this in the US.
The book Freakonomics talks abuot gun violence, and some conclusions that I'm guessing Jon would even back are pointed out in their recent podcast.
Some takeaways from a statistical point of view include:
1) swimming pool 100x more likely to lead to death of child than a gun in a home
2) stastically, for a given gun, 1 homicide is commited every 10,000 years.
3) even the best gun buyback program would prevent less than 1 homicide.
Long story short - you might love guns, or hate guns, but if you want to have a shot of doing something meaningful to stem gun violence, limiting new or existing guns in the street isn't going to get you there - the toothpaste is already out of the tube.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
Chad, the research goes forward without predetermined conclusions if scientific methods are utilized. So why would you say that we should likewise provide funding for the "other side." Presumably we don't know which side the evidence will come down on. That's the point of doing research. I frankly don't know who's right on this issue. You notice I don't blog much about that. I just don't know. I'd like to know, but as we can see the NRA has blocked funding for it.
If the government shouldn't be doing things like this, what do you think of the government research that led to the development of computers, the internet, satellite communications, shipping, automation, lasers, GPS, and everything else that distinguishes us from the rest of the poor world? Our government research, including massive medical R&D which keeps us alive and healthy, is what distinguishes us from poor countries. The attitude that we should just throw it all out and act like Haiti means we should ignore the lessons of history and pursue a path that will make us poor and ignorant.
Would you prefer we not have computers or the internet? Do you think that is a better, more prosperous world and why think that? Which examples of poor countires became rich without government intervention any time in the last 100 years?
And the data on happiness is not me asking if people agree with me. I'm citing the studies. Heck, you told me the same thing. You said you are no happier now with money then you were before when you scrapped by. But again, I'm not asking people to just agree or disagree. I'm looking at the data. Again I think it's something conservatives are reluctant to do because of that well known liberal bias that facts have.
Chad,
Yet again you have misread/ misinterpreted responses to you.
I said 1 in 5 people will have an acute depression not mental illness.
For love of humanity and a discussion Please read responses CAREFULLY before you LURCH in to a response.
BTW you are showing your ignorance about an acute depression need medical assistance.
I said 1 in 20 have mental illness again not all mental illness means “psycho”, “mad”, “crazy” or what even half arsed euphemism your lack of understanding uses.
The point is Chad that 1 in 5 people at some time in their lives are vulnerable to be sufficiently depressed to potentially attempt suicide. Even though the depression to do so is a temporary matter and otherwise the person is a “normal highly functioning person”.
Clearly the problem is that if in the height of depression some one uses a fire arm game over.
BTW these numbers are relatively consistent western world wide. Check them out !
The world isn't a choice between black or white. The reality is that devout Christians are in those numbers too.
Before you knee jerk into you don't know of any one that has there are some FACTS you need to consider.
a. in countries where access to firearms are restricted there are LESS actual DEATHS from suicide because the methods are usually less certain i.e. pharmaceutical OD.
b. Most people that attempt suicide in a depression don't repeat the exercise if they get timely intervention .
c.A large portion of suicide attempts are Adolescents and young adults and the causes are by our standards trivial (hormone related etc) if they have access to a firearm all hell ensues. However Statistics from crisis intervention services clearly show that if they are helped during that time they go on and live normal productive lives.
NB Odds are that your children will have an event as described, you simply can't tell until it happens. Denial and 'tough love' at this time will increase the chances of a tragic end.
Chad, I spent over 10 years of my life dealing with other people's issues and believe it or not the Hard core Christian parents because of THEIR faith they don't see it coming. Keep in mind regardless of what you believe it is not written in stone that given the circumstances of being a teenager that our children will be immune.
Jonathan,
Good points sir and I agree - if a study was more focused on why than what - that makes sense, but that wasn't the focus of the study - not at all. You also touched on the bigger point I was heading toward and that is if this is such a huge issue to our society then we are all missing the mark by a huge long shot.
What concerns me and all of us gun crazed nuts (tounge and cheek) is that the Second Admendment is clear on this subject yet there are people making laws against our own consititution and that is scary to me.
But at the same time many who believe in these gun laws are the same people who turn their head when it comes to the enormous damage illegals in this country cause. Its okay to spend millions on a study that does prove that a very small percentage of people take their own life by the gun and an equally small amount die from a gun and moreover to use that study to take action - we must act and act now kinds of thing is okay. But damn anyone for pointing out studies and data that shows how incredible damaging illegals are to this country. Something that is really really a problem when you break it down. You want some sobering stats -
1. $11 to $22 Billion spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments
2. $22 billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC and free school lunches for illegals
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year in Medicaid for illegals
4. $12 Billion Dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary education for children here illegally.
5. $17 billons spent on anchor babies
6. $3 million per day to incarcerate illegals.
7. 30% of all Federal Prison Inmates are illegal aliens
8. In 2006 illegals sent home $45 billion in remittance to their country of origin.
Its estimated that $200 billion dollars a year in suppressed American Wages are caused by illegals.
So - $338.3 billion dollars per year (2006) is a lot of money lost all by the hand of illegals. I find that far more important than trying to manipulate or destroy the Second Admendment to cut down on 10 out of 10,000 stat don't you?
Jonathan - Sorry on the 1 in 5 if that wasn't your reference. Definitely one of the subjects - for me anyhow - that I am not very felxible on. I understand society loves to celebrate diseases of all kinds - but today it almost seems like if your not on some kind of meds for some type of mental disorder then your the wierd one. Are there real mental disorders that require medication - of course there are and I would not want to make light of those, but it is my absolute humble and non clinical analysis that there is a great big - huge - percent of people that aren't afflicted with anything, but need something to justify some kind of failure in their life or issue that they can't deal with. All I have to do is look at the neighbors on both side of me and in my family - all diagnosed with "clinical depression' and on meds. A friend of mine is a guidance counsler - he is sickened by the desire of kids to place blame wherever they can when faced with a difficulty.
Anyhow - apologies.
JC - Your point is well taken about technology to some degree - although it took government money to back the creation of the inventions we enjoy - they still were designed, thought and built by private citizens hired by gov't. Then once the framework was out there - the private market improved them dramatically for consumer use.
Also it is important to note that the Constitution is clear that gov't IS supposed to run the military - it is one of its charters to do and many of these advancements/creations all came by way of the military. In fact I can't think of one that didn't come through the arm of the military.
Last - the inventions you mentioned don't have a side because they are essentially things - they are items we all can use - no bias at all.
These studies - which use tax payer money of course - come to a pre-determined conclusion in most (if not all cases). They are used as mouth pieces to make some kind of legislation in one direction or another in most cases.
The question is this - who decides what is important to study. Currently it is very clear that there is so much freaking waste they all should be cut to zero IMO and start over the process to figure our what is important.
Example - The US government is spending $3.4 million on a study to figure out how many times someone needs to go to a chiropractor to get their back rubbed to alleviate migraine headaches.
Ohio State got $386,000 in gov't money to massage rabbits.
$453,000 to Cal to study how breathing is important to meditation.
$1.2 mil to Cal (SF) to study how meditation helps weight loss.
Wake Forest got $750k to study hot flashes.
Are these earth shattering required studies? I think not and this only just a tiny sliver of bad programs/studies out there.
Want to tackle cancer - I'm in - figure out how to clean our air better - in, how to improve crop growth/yield - in, figure out how to reduce unemployment to 2% - in, in and in. All those things improve everyone's life regardless of your political position.
Chad,If you'd read a little more and without your abiding Fox news prejudices, you'll find there is way more to it.
BTW Your 'to get you back rubbed' is way over the top and incredibly ignorant.
All because YOU don't have or know about spinal issues.
FYI many specially trained MD's also do skeletal manipulation..
Oh BTW my crushed discs in the spine is due to an employer when I was 18. However the extent of the injury didn't become clear until 30 by which time the business had gone. The culprit had started a newer more successful one, died and run by a corp with his son as a board member.
My alternatives are Diabolical meds an operation that would have and still would had less than 50% chance I'd walk again. The pains are episodic not permanent. Nor am I unique.
The points of my war story is to point out that as usual you myopic focus is both egocentric and myopic.
That's classic liberal thinking, your personal tragedy or situation suddenly becomes my responsibility - thanks for proving my point.
Your back hurts - that doesn't authorize the use of my tax money to find your cure although you'll certainly try.
Post a Comment