1. "America is Wikileak’s true enemy — by guest blogger Steve Schippert *UPDATED*" Yes it is. And in turn we should recognize that Wikileak's is an enemy organization and treat it accordingly.
Representative Sample: when they say they expose documents on “government abuse,” what they mean — almost exclusively in practice — is that they fish for folks to send them secret operational documents potentially damaging to the US military and intelligence. They create entire waves of news cycles. The intent is to damage military ops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The reality is that they get people killed.
2. "Will Moderate Muslims Please Stand Up" That would be nice.
Representative Sample: Be the surgeon of your own religion. Declare a Jihad on the those you claim are perverting your precious message. If those at war with human freedom are truly your religion's cancer, cut them out!
3. "Five Silver Linings of ObamaCare" Sort of. I'm not convinced that most of the worst aspects will be reversed.
Representative Sample: In a perverse sort of way, ObamaCare may be the best thing that could have come out of Obama’s first term as President. Had he and the Democrat leadership opted to push a more limited program that only extended to those who couldn’t afford health insurance, Americans may have gone for it, thus locking in yet another entitlement program that would metastasize beyond its original scope. But by overreaching they made the water so hot that the frog of public opinion can’t wait to leap out.
4. "Does Ignorance Of Tax Law Make Tim Fernholz A Moron?" Pretty much. A nice take-down of the left-wing idiocy du jour.
Representative Sample: First things first: Timmy, if you're going to discuss corporate taxation, it would serve you well to understand one of the most fundamental aspects of taxation: The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Doing so will allow you to avoid being called out as a complete moron on the internet by a Certified Public Accountant.
5. "Let’s stop lying to ourselves" I'm pro-death penalty, but this argument against makes a lot of sense.
Representative Sample: Once again, a jury is being asked by the prosecution to express the outrage of the community for a terrible crime. But, in reality, expressing outrage is all they are being asked to do, because regardless of what sentence is handed down, the greatest probability is that Rasheed Scrugs will die in prison, of old age, of natural causes, or because some other inmate kills him. The least likely end for Mr Scrugs will be execution by the state.
To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.
Your link makes it sound like Wikileaks is targeting the US military. This is clearly not the case as Wikileaks has also leaked sensitive information from many other countries including (for example) China.
ReplyDeleteThe link you cite seems to exhibit classic "shoot the messenger" mentality. Why are the leaks damaging? Because they expose atrocities committed and/or sanctioned by the US military*. But instead of asking why they occurred, or why they were covered up, people criticise the whistle-blower.
* While I don't know about these new leaks, Robert Gates recently admitted that the previous leaks didn't compromise the US military, allies or source -- despite previously accusing wikileaks of "having blood on their hands":
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T1
"Your link makes it sound like Wikileaks is targeting the US military. This is clearly not the case as Wikileaks has also leaked sensitive information from many other countries including (for example) China."
ReplyDeleteOh please. Wikileaks is clearly targeting the U.S. regardless of whether or not it happens to leak other material as well. It might as well be the official ministry of propaganda for the Taliban.
"The link you cite seems to exhibit classic "shoot the messenger" mentality. Why are the leaks damaging? Because they expose atrocities committed and/or sanctioned by the US military*. But instead of asking why they occurred, or why they were covered up, people criticise the whistle-blower."
Wikileaks is not a whistleblower. It's an organization collaborating with U.S. traitors to publish secret information in an attempt to damage the U.S. war effort. There's no need to ask why atrocities occurred. Is it some sort of surprise to anyone that Iraqis were abusing prisoners? And it's pretty obvious why the U.S. decided to take a hands-off approach. The information was covered up for PR reasons. That's why it was classified and should have remained classified.
"Wikileaks is clearly targeting the U.S."
ReplyDeleteClearly? Clearly? It's not at all clear. There are not a disproportionate number of leaks from the US military. Or are you saying that the US military is so virtuous that a single leak would be disproportionate?
"It's an organization collaborating with U.S. traitors..."
Once again: the US military is not perfect. People trying to expose corruption in the military are patriots, not traitors. This whole "my country right or wrong" thing has got to stop -- it's such an ignorant and naive attitude to think that all Americans are saintly and all foreigners compromised. Accept that there are bad eggs in the US military, that the US would be better off without them there, and that the military (like all large organisations) is imperfect at weeding them out. Sometimes it takes a whistleblower or external entity to help. In the long term, organisations like wikileaks will strengthen the US and its military if their conduct can be improved.