Taking a Leak
In the style of a 3-2-1 clue, Taking a Leak=Taking a Piss, substituting a word gives you Taking the Piss, which brings you to >>>>Wikileaks.
About half of yesterday's Guardian was devoted to reports of the latest revelations from Wikileaks' hoard of ill-gotten US embassy cables and their wider impact. I imagine the paper has been like this for the entire week. As a Grauniad reader (on Saturdays at least) I should probably approve of these leaks and revel in the embarrassment being suffered by the nasty ol' US administration, Prince Andrew and such. But, as is so often the case with me, I find myself going completely against the accepted grain on the issue.
In much the same way as I am ignoring this weekend's Facebook meme of changing one's profile picture to a cartoon character from my youth, which in my head defines me as a rugged, single-minded, lone wolf kinda guy whereas in reality everyone probably thinks I'm just a contrary prick.
Nonetheless, I have serious problems with Julien Assange and his pathological quest to publish the unpublishable. Fair enough, you can make a convincing case for blowing the lid off dubious and possibly illegal practices which took place during the Iraq and Afgahnistan wars, and whistleblowers have of course played a vital role in exposing corruption and nefarious practices throughout history and should in no way be discouraged. (We could certainly do with a few from FIFA, judging by this week's events.)
But these embassy documents are another kettle of fish. Most of the stuff that has been reported is gossip and tittle-tattle, with the main objection appearing to be that Governments and diplomats say one thing in public and another behind closed doors. Well guess what? This is normal human behaviour. None of us go around saying exactly what we think of everyone and everything to their faces, and we moderate our speech and opinions based on our surroundings. This is the very essence of diplomacy. Yes, this often means they and we have to be civil and accommodating to folk we secretly despise, but this is one of the fundamental bases of society.
Any intelligent person would have already suspected that Berlusconi is a self-aggrandising knob, Sarkozy is mercurial and George Osborne out of his depth. We are also aware that such powerful positions tend to attract a certain type of character, and they have to deal with each other through gritted teeth in most cases. It's not a great system, but it's the one we're stuck with, and it'd be a fuck sight worse without the veneer of respect and cordiality which diplomacy provides.
Or, in the words the Guardian, reporting those of a questioner posting on its website this week:
Just wanted to get that off my chest. In truth, I would have liked it to be kept a secret, but Mr Assange insisted.
UPDATE~!
Someone on Facebook just posted this as their status:
About half of yesterday's Guardian was devoted to reports of the latest revelations from Wikileaks' hoard of ill-gotten US embassy cables and their wider impact. I imagine the paper has been like this for the entire week. As a Grauniad reader (on Saturdays at least) I should probably approve of these leaks and revel in the embarrassment being suffered by the nasty ol' US administration, Prince Andrew and such. But, as is so often the case with me, I find myself going completely against the accepted grain on the issue.
In much the same way as I am ignoring this weekend's Facebook meme of changing one's profile picture to a cartoon character from my youth, which in my head defines me as a rugged, single-minded, lone wolf kinda guy whereas in reality everyone probably thinks I'm just a contrary prick.
Nonetheless, I have serious problems with Julien Assange and his pathological quest to publish the unpublishable. Fair enough, you can make a convincing case for blowing the lid off dubious and possibly illegal practices which took place during the Iraq and Afgahnistan wars, and whistleblowers have of course played a vital role in exposing corruption and nefarious practices throughout history and should in no way be discouraged. (We could certainly do with a few from FIFA, judging by this week's events.)
But these embassy documents are another kettle of fish. Most of the stuff that has been reported is gossip and tittle-tattle, with the main objection appearing to be that Governments and diplomats say one thing in public and another behind closed doors. Well guess what? This is normal human behaviour. None of us go around saying exactly what we think of everyone and everything to their faces, and we moderate our speech and opinions based on our surroundings. This is the very essence of diplomacy. Yes, this often means they and we have to be civil and accommodating to folk we secretly despise, but this is one of the fundamental bases of society.
Any intelligent person would have already suspected that Berlusconi is a self-aggrandising knob, Sarkozy is mercurial and George Osborne out of his depth. We are also aware that such powerful positions tend to attract a certain type of character, and they have to deal with each other through gritted teeth in most cases. It's not a great system, but it's the one we're stuck with, and it'd be a fuck sight worse without the veneer of respect and cordiality which diplomacy provides.
Or, in the words the Guardian, reporting those of a questioner posting on its website this week:
... "the secret and secure nature of diplomatic correspondence had allowed [British diplomats] to take on a "brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation." Without such secrecy and security, said the questioner, none of that would have been possible."Mr Assange's response to this was not entirely forthcoming. I suppose what it all boils down to whether you consider freedom of speech a privilege or a right. My view is just because you can publish something doesn't mean that you should.
Just wanted to get that off my chest. In truth, I would have liked it to be kept a secret, but Mr Assange insisted.
UPDATE~!
Someone on Facebook just posted this as their status:
Did u Hear The Group Asking Every1 To Change Their Profile Picture ToTheir Favourite Cartoon Characters Is Actually A Group Of Peadophiles..Their Doin It Because Kids Will Accept Their Friend Requests Faster If They See A Cartoon Picture.. It Has Nothing To Do With Supporting Child Violence.. It Was On That Tv Show ...That Warns You About Internet Frauds (Snoops) Plus Tonight's News...SPREAD THE MESSAGE AROUND
See, I was right not to change my pic! Because A Message Which Capitalizes Every Word MUST Be Correct! Right?
Comments