The religion of Julian Assange--one view

"Like other anti-American cranks on the planet, Assange holds firm in his warped faith that the U.S. is the leading source of global evil. The roots of this religion run deep, beginning with 18th century European aristocrats who despised the American Revolution. The anti-Americanism of Nazis, communists, tribalists, anarchists and now militant Islamists all rehash the same tropes, with their semi-schizoid baseline being the U.S. is simultaneously a vast authoritarian conspiracy and a heterogeneous menagerie of infidel-cowboy-capitalist idiots who dogmatically resist enlightened social policies.

Assange argues his revelations will force this conglomerate American monster to become more secretive and authoritarian. Limiting access to information, in order to stop future leaks, will reduce the monster's secretive and authoritarian effectiveness. The monster's "security state" will dumb down, and --here's the moment of religious rapture in Assange's prophecy -- this will increase global justice.

Assange also links this shackling of America to creating peace. Don't snicker too long. There are a lot of tenured gray-haired profs with ponytails who teach this dreck at notable universities and get paid for it.

Assange understands media grandstanding, but he doesn't understand people and certainly doesn't understand how American diplomats contribute to maintaining peace."

Read the whole piece. WikiLeaks' Bottom-Line Revelation

"Wikileaks obtained hundreds of thousands of secret American military and diplomatic documents from a U.S. soldier (PFC Bradley Manning) who worked in intelligence. As such, Manning had a security clearance and access to SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). This was a private Department of Defense network established in 1991, using Internet technology and able to handle classified (secret) documents. But Manning got access to a computer with a writable CD drive, and was able to copy all those classified documents to a CD (marked as containing Lady Gaga tracks) and walk out of his workplace with it."

Read the rest. Information Warfare: Why Wikileaks Backfired

Censorship or common sense?

As a librarian I think I've seen or read just about everything that's out there (that's stupid) about digital porn, filters, libraries and access. It's always about freedom and never about protecting children or library patrons who have to sit next to the perverts. "Well, what if they are doing a school report about AIDS in Africa, and you've got a filter on the computer?" Yeah, sure. I know people who will not take their children to public libraries unattended--and that's just fine, indeed recommended, by some library directors. God forbid some slimeball should be prevented masterbating at the terminal or stacks while he views naked girls and women. Now it's Wikipedia. What? Librarians on their board/staff? Here's the story in E-Commerce News.

A decades-old record album cover showing a young girl posing nude may be illegal in the UK, but the controversial image has not been banned in the U.S., where Wikipedia is hosted. The user-created online encyclopedia has therefore determined it would be censorship to remove the image from its pages. Several British ISPs have restricted access to the page, however, in response to a complaint.

Independent, non-profit, non-partisan, pt. 1

These words have lost their meaning in today‘s political climate. They might have meaning for their tax status, but not their reliability, their slant or values. Ignore these terms when seeking information and do more than a cursory background check before trusting.

Today I was attempting to look up information on a “consumer health care incentives” conference taking place this week. I found that web page from a table of contents that a publisher sent in an e-mail to a librarian list. All the conference topics used what I would call either jargon or mush terms--impossible for the outsider (like me who worked in a medical library for 14 years) to discern. But I could figure out the conference logo--a large carrot dangling in front of buildings labeled hospital, insurance company, government, etc. inside what looked like a stamp. So I examined the list of speakers and just picked one, Thomas P. Miller, who was presenting a paper for AEI, American Enterprise Institute, which I would define as libertarian in its economic views, conservative in its social views, and all over the map politically. Over the years I have found their reports and papers to be trustworthy and well-researched, even if I don‘t always agree with their conclusions.

After browsing Mr. Miller’s resume I found a google link directing me to a wiki, Source Watch. Wikis are all over the internet--they are user-created encyclopedias and they are not peer-reviewed--your 13 year old could contribute and probably has because anyone can edit the information an expert just contributed 30 minutes ago. The most famous wiki is probably Wikipedia, but they are proliferating like pet rabbits loosed after Easter. Sometimes a wiki can help you get someplace, but they are not in the same class with Encyclopedia Britannica which began publishing in 1768 or The World Book that you may remember from your schools days. Their advantage is they often contain really obscure information that isn’t available in a true encyclopedia.

Next entry will continue this theme, but now it's time to go to the coffee shop.

4070

Wiki-wacky wonks and wobblies

Conservatives should be making a stronger presence in using wikis on the internet. Not all are Wikipedia. All sorts are cropping up in every field, but the liberals are running away with this genre. There is a new Encyclopedia of the Earth that is well financed, supported by liberal think tanks and non-profits, and because it is free, you just know that's where the school children will be going. There is a complete book included chapter by chapter, "Climate Change and Foreign Policy" by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian (i.e. global) non-profit. Its agenda: promote the needs of the poor through limits set by the state on technology and social organization or some similar socialist/progressive/Marxist chatter.

I'm sure the contributors to the enclyclopedia will have a long line of credentials behind their names, drawing on our finest academic departments from our most liberal universities. Someone with more sleuthing experience than I, like American Daughter or Amy, needs to take a look at this.

I'm 100% in favor of taking care of God's creation--after all, it's the marching orders for Christians from the Bible, but not when animals, plants and political parties come before human beings in a pantheistic based faith promoted by the left.

PS: You won't want to miss the article on Totems (animal worship in the form of carved statues) and how it can be the basis for environmental laws. It's in the same section as fundamental legal rights for animals.