Assange Rises as Corporations Fall

Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of the currently downed Wikileaks Web site and international man-on-the-run, turned himself in to Scotland Yard two days ago. The arrest of Mr. Assange had been called for by Swedish authorities and the warrant became pervasive in Europe on Dec. 1, with Interpol issuing a “Red Notice” (color association with levels of perceived danger somehow makes the gravity of threat verge on humorous, instead of serious. Thank you, terrorist color warning system) for his arrest. The warrant derives from allegedly legitimate accusations concerning two charges of sexual assault against the Wikileaks founder. Each allegation has resulted in backlash of considerable doubt and dripping criticism by media and public alike. Considering the charges were initially dropped against Assange and then resurfaced once the immense power of Wikileaks actualized, in conjunction with the ferocity felt toward Assange by various countries wielding incredible amounts of power, it’s unsurprising that the charges have been popularized as untenable. Assange and Wikileaks have denounced the accusations as a smear campaign against Wikileaks.

The questionable validity of the accusations is not issue for concern. Undoubtedly, if Assange loses the court battle against his extradition and is put on trial in Sweden, the court case will be weighted heavily against him. Still, even if convicted, whether on an ambiguous ruling or ostensibly justifiable grounds, Assange will have achieved martyrdom status within the counterculture. SO, going to court is a victory for the Wikileaks founder, whether he is cleared of all charges or convicted, and turning himself in at this juncture is strategically a brilliant maneuver.

Consider this, the British judge disallowed Assange bail on these two grounds: they are certain that if granted bail he would flee, and they are preoccupied with his safety. Should Assange die in prison, it will be viciously obvious that his murder was perpetrated by one of the many governments who have him within their crosshairs, which will result in instant martyrdom for Assange and gobs of criticism and backlash toward the British government for placing himself in a threatening environment (of course, if this occurs, the reputed Poison Pill will be released). In addition, the alleged concern for his safety is a bogus assertion. Thus far, Assange has managed running Wikileaks safely enough, and his most tangible threat has been government agencies, SUCH AS Scotland Yard, who have sought to detain him. By stating, and with good reason, that the British judicial system has adequate grounds to believe that Julian Assange, if granted bail, would immediately flee, the judges are only adding to his mythos, which is accruing volume daily.

Through turning himself in, Assange puts all of his dissidents in a very perilous and delicate situation, as demonstrated by the multiple online organizations that have joined Wikileaks in the fight against maligned corporations in bed with our own government and the misguided vigilante, redneck hackers such as Jester. Any misstep against Assange will result in a public relations nightmare and a Web war.

An element to the Wikileaks phenomenon remains woefully unaddressed. What about us? Wikileaks intentionally releases classified or withheld information to the public and in order top keep us more aware of our government’s proclivities.

How does this affect you? Many people, such as Press Secretary Robert Gates (who has easily one of the worst television personas I have ever seen. Also, his rhetorical savvy is dubious. Here is what Robert Gates had to say about our relations with foreign government’s post Cablegate: ““The fact is governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they think we can keep secrets” and “governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us.” Good. I’m pleased that the head of spin at Washington is perpetuating our country’s impetuous nature at a time of poor PR) enjoy spouting that Assange is putting people at incredible risk. What about the Wikileaks cast? Is Assange not in incredible peril? Are his compatriots not in danger? In order to retain their liberty, Wikileaks workers have a cache of important documents and cables (again, the Poison Pill) that they will release should they encounter their greatest threat (the ire of the politicians they are exposing); collateral against the jeopardy they willingly placed themselves into in order to better serve us common folk.

Is it not obvious that the argument for danger is unfounded and contains incredible spin? Our military knowingly places these people into danger situations. How does releasing documents for public use accentuate the danger people already found or find themselves in? These are documents and cables that express what a person; group or government has done or plans to do. If the release of such information reveals perilous scenarios, it’s assumed that the action they performed or plan to perform is a dangerous action. These people were already imperiled long before the documents and cables were released. Forget this justification for persecuting Julian Assange; much like Harriet the Spy, our childish government can’t put up with their secret journal being put up on public display.

So how do we take this information that Wikileaks has provided us with? As the intended audience, I feel we should have some reaction. Consider this: corporations such as Amazon have succumbed to the pressure of politicians (Amazon was persuaded to pull hosting support by Joe Lieberman [what, how?], Lieberman smugly congratulated himself for this achievement on Fox News and then attacked the NY Times with accusations of espionage and poor citizenship [why is he still allowed to attend Democratic caucuses?]) and pulled support from Wikileaks. Other corporations who have made it pretty clear that they are influenced quite heavily by government interest: Paypal (and by extension Ebay), Visa and Mastercard.

Visa and Mastercard both claim that they’re waiting to see if investigations of Wikileaks expose any activity that contravenes the ethos of their businesses. Yet, wouldn’t it be in their best interest as a business to allow Mastercard and Visa to be used on the site until something controversial enough to disturb a corporation’s ethos (ha!) surfaces?

Let’s consider this logically. The intention of Wikileaks is to provide information to the public, to keep governments open. Our government and other governments do not wish this to happen. They express their distaste. Corporations begin to pull their support from Wikileaks. How do we interpret the corporations’ choice to essentially ditch Wikileaks? Well, the Web site was made for us to be informed, the governments do not wish us to be informed and some corporations have aligned their support with the government. Therefore, these corporations also wish for the public to remain in the dark. Yet, withdrawing their support from Wikileaks was a very public action, which I can only take as a slight against me, the citizen and intended audience of the whistle-blowing Web site.

What I am saying:

I have this weird obsession with making sure that when the historic moment in my lifetime comes to the fore, I want to make sure I place myself into the fray. Experience tells me that even though I believe this sentiment is unique to me, it isn’t. More likely, most people within whatever demographic I embody (I’ve been categorized as a millennial, a techno, an iKid, a post 9/11-er) have echoed this passion. As Wikileaks’ influence and effects on international relations are realized, both in the virtual and physical world, the public will have to decide whether keeping the government honest and in check is a norm citizens should expect. Although my bias is obvious, I’m not trying to coerce your support for Julian Assange. Just asking for you to examine the facts and check the premises. Then, make a decision. Knowing where you stand may have integral importance in the not-so-distant future.

-Mozart

Dear President Obama

I wanted to write you a letter.

I realize that this is impossible due to volume of incoming mail and the screening process, but my eight-year-old conscience seemed fairly certain that a letter would suffice. If I had seen wisdom in my younger conscious' urgings, you may be holding some grammatically simple, staccato four-sentencer, accompanied by an extraneous drawing of myself, my family and my house, disproportionate and incompetently rendered. Obviously, I ommitted mailing a letter, opting to post my letter to you in a semi-public forum with hopes that my letter will be passed along until it graces the LED on your favorite laptop in the Oval Office, drawing your attention as you sup your favorite brew. You see, Mr. President, I want to ask you a question. I'm your run-of-the-mill malleable citizen, but unlike the average American, I'm deluded with the notion that someone with your political prowess and ubiquitous popularity would deign to respond to my question. So, Executive, CEO of America, will you answer my question?

Let me detail the setting in which my question manifested: I'm lying in bed, thinking about the potential luxuries of owning a hybrid vehicle (reduction of carbon footprint, enviro cred, vain basking of self-righteousness, etc.), when the name Reginald C. Punnett came to the forefront of my thoughtscape. You know who he is? I'm sure you do . . . invented the Punnett square? You know, the Punnett square . . . Determines probability of genotype? Demonstrates hybridization? Anyway, as I ruminate over the word hybrid and the derivation of a hybrid object (plant, animal, vehicle), I have one of those Eureka moments, like Bill Nye did back in the day: If a hybrid car is by definition a gas-electric car, then its derivation is a gas-powered (internal combustion engine) car and an electric (non-ICE) car. Therefore, a purely electric car must exist.

I do some research and verify my logic. An electric car did exist, over a century ago and again a decade ago. Although some of our earliest cars were electric, the powers of the market made the ICE more popular. As a result, our 20th century vehicles ran entirely on gas. This was the status quo until 1996, when GM introduced the EV Impact, better known as the EV1, for lease. A car completely dependent on renewable energy?! In 1996?! I know, I'm as shocked as you are. Since you're probably already asking yourself the question I submit to you, I'll put into words for both of us: Why am I not driving an electric car?

That's my question, Mr. President. Sorry it took so long.

I know you have a staff for this, but I did some superficial sleuthing of my own and it appears that the propagation of electric vehicles could have colossal affects on many current affairs. Without the high demand for oil, we could halt offshore drilling, as well as break the American addiction to the gas pump. We could leave Iraq, we have no excuse to be there if oil is no longer necessary. If our country takes another step toward renewable energy, other countries would cease to decry us as hypocrites for demanding environmentally conscious action while practicing inaction. In addition, rich oil countries wouldn't be able to manipulate us, for their poitical currency becomes worthless.

Of course, this is all positive speculation, but their aren't many negatives I can foresee.

Well, I guess there are some. The automotive companies would not be too happy with you. And since so many members in Congress lobby for them, well, I guess that wouldn't make your agenda easy to implement. Also, the oil barons will be pouring all of their campaign dollars into your upcoming opponent, which could make your re-election tricky.

Most of the potential negatives effect you directly, which makes your decision inarguably difficult. Your welfare versus the welfare of the public.

I felt that in the wake of your Earth day debacle, it may be nice to take a step in a more environmentally conscious direction. It's simple politics, the art of misdirection. Respond to an environmental atrocity with vigorous environmental support. Shine light on the positive and distance yourself from the negative (oil). I feel if you mull over my question, and see the positives, you have no choice but to spring in to action and censure automotive companies. Push for automotive companies to open EV lines again. Use your GM investment to revive the EV program. It doesn't hurt to try.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed my letter to you. You are welcome for dinner at my house anytime. You missed out on smoked salmon fettucine tonight, but there's always next time.

Only a full-time binge drinker would support drug tests for welfare recipients

As I sipped my fresh-squeezed Florida Natural this morning, my eyes flicked up and down the Facebook news feed. A smattering of undoubtedly everlasting friendships had been sealed, staged photos were posted in abundance, status updates saturated with exclamation points decorated the landscape and groups had been created and joined. The everyday pulp of Facebook. As far as Facebook groups go, most groups are pretty inane, digitalized outlets that serve no purpose whatsoever, and some are genuinely hilarious. At least, I thought Facebook groups to be completely harmless until I read that some of my Facebook “friends” had joined a group demanding mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients.

Initially, I shrugged their moronic mindlessness as general ho-hum Facebook activity, until I read some news briefs later that day. Congress is actually considering implementing such an absurd measure (which isn’t saying much, because Congress considering something usually translates into some old representative making an off-hand comment about it while he slept during some filibuster. Still, people are supporting such an asinine move, so it must be discussed).

I immediately hopped back on Facebook and began examining the information sections of the various groups in support of this movement. Largely, and to no surprise, each group was formed around some yahoo’s own misguided opinions and not founded on any firm evidence. Here’s an example from such a group:

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay check, I work on a rig site for a Fort McMurray construction project. At any time I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. HOWEVER, what I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their fanny, drink beer and smoke dope. Could you imagine how much money this country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? If you agree, please pass this along, or simply delete if you don't. Hope you will pass it along though, because something has to change in this country.

Allow me to enlighten you:

First of all, how the FUCK will such a program help us save money? Do people actually believe that everyone on welfare is perpetually coked out? This is hardly the case. In a recent study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the largest estimated percentage of substance abuse in the welfare population is 16.3 percent. This number declines sharply as age increases. Will preventing sixteen percent of the population from receiving welfare save more money than the time and labor costs of testing the full one hundred percent? Perhaps (not), but it will be a meager pittance and will NOT save the economy, which this group author contends that it may do.

Not to mention, a large portion (around half, according to the study) of these substance abusers have families that are dependant on the welfare check. By withdrawing the money from the families, we do more damage than good. If anything, we perpetuate squalor by forsaking these families into destitution.

Mainly, these sites focus on their issues with giving their tax money to drug users. Oh, and the assumption is that our tax-based government employees don’t take drugs, right? And what about alcohol abuse? Alcohol abuse is far more rampant, in forms of binge drinking and heavy use. Yet, drug tests don’t account for these predominant substance abusers, a major flaw in the proposed requirements for welfare recipients.

Most importantly, drug tests are never a proper solution from preventing someone from taking drugs. Countless peers of mine have passed on a blunt, pill or line because they had a drug test coming up. A temporary absence and eventual return to the norm. Drug testing those on welfare doesn’t assure that recipients are drug-free, merely that they can stop shooting up when the occasion calls for it, when survival beckons in the form of a government check.


-Mozart

Citizens of tomorrow, be forewarned . . .

Today we tend to scoff at the bookburners, the backward (most likely southern) illiterates of old who banned Twain, burned Beatles anthologies and supped Southern Comfort like it was their sister's tit.

These pyros spawned Bradbury's now famous novel, Fahrenheit 451; a major influence toward our realization that censorship is a a grievous mistreatment of human intelligence (except when the moron in class is verbally silenced by the instructor, that is justified censorship).

After I finished re-reading the book I thought to myself, "Man, that society would suck to live in. I mean, their print media is virtually non-existent, they engage in war and mobilize troops all the time, all people care about is television or sports and their entire life is spent being considered a consumer, someone to market to daily and nightly."

The first step to life is to pull the plug.



-Mozart