I find many things ironic. However, I came across and article recently regarding the well known Julian Assange.
As many of us know, he has a website called WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks’ sole purpose is to take confidential information and make it public.
Prior to this year, many of the leaks were based upon companies. Since this spring, many of the leaks have originated from the US government.
Now, to look at the situation from an organizational level and relate it to a human is fairly simple. The cables were simply an internal dialog regarding the inner workings and thoughts of government employees. These would be very similar to the thoughts in one’s head. These are meant to be an internal dialog and not to be shared with outsiders.
In some cases, these were also private conversations with our government, also intended to be confidential.
This is the way bodies work, whether internal or as large organizations. There has to be that internal dialog.
However, it seems that Julian doesn’t like information being leaked about him.
Ironic? You decide.
In this article, Julian blasts those who try to smear him.
“He accused his media partners at The Guardian newspaper, which worked with him to make the embarrassing leaks public, of unfairly tarnishing him by revealing damaging details of the sex assault allegations he faces in Sweden.”
You mean to tell me that showing only part of the conversation is bad?
He says:
Speaking from the English mansion where he is confined on bail, the 39-year-old Australian said that the decision to publish incriminating police files about him was “disgusting”.
But, wait a minute.. Why is releasing information about the government good but information about Julian bad?
And, much like he asked the government to help them redact files for names, the Guardian also gave him time to respond. Much like the jilted government who spurned helping him, he did the same to the Guardian:
Mr Assange is understood to be particularly angry with a senior reporter at the paper and former friend for “selectively publishing” incriminating sections of the police report, although The Guardian made clear that the WikiLeaks founder was given several days to respond.
To me, this is the definition of irony. A many who is hell bent on disclosing information held by others doesn’t want his own information made public.
This exemplifies the classic liberal.
One law for thee, and another for me.
Because I am smarter than you.
And I am more moral than you.
And more ethical.
And nobler.
Just ask me.
The “veil of secrecy” must be taken away from the United States, because the United States is an immoral dictatorship.
But the holy, virtuous, and noble Julian Assange must enjoy absolute privacy in all his doings.
No consistency adheres to the modern liberal. No reason upholds their actions.
An old French expression comes to mind: hoist by his own petard. [You could look it up.]
Or, perhaps, he that lives by the sword will die by the sword.
The Romans had advice for Julian,
Wise men love, others are mere lechers.
This situation certainly is ironic, Chipset.
Maybe if Julian A. is as lucky as Valerie Plame and her hubby, Joe Wilson, the liberals in Hollywood will make a disgustingly dishonest movie about him that paints him the way he wants us to see him instead of how he is.
But those horror shows full of lies backfire on their creators, too.
Just ask Michael Moore.
(Irony alert!)
Michael Moore put out a movie about how horrible OUR health care system was compared with Cubas.
It was called ”Sicko.”
Julian Assange leaked a Cuban cable to the effect that the Cuban dictators had to prevent their slaves (I mean people) from seeing Sicko because it painted too rosy a picture of how their medical treatment was supposed to be.
Michael Moore had given $20,000 to get Julian Assange out on bail.
I wonder if he now wishes he hadn’t.
I’m not sure I’d call this guy a liberal or representative of the rest of us.
Cary, liberal no longer means what you think. In the case of you and Rich Wheeler I see the both of you as individuals that truly mean well, but view the dem party through rose colored glasses. You are liberal leaning or moderate liberals, but not liberals in the current sense.
From what I can tell of Assange he is very much a liberal and representative.
Coulter has a nice article about Assange and Holder, the First Amendment and the absurdity of it all.