|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 15:06:38 GMT -5
BTW, companies are legal "entities" with responsibilities and PRIVLIDGES. Including the right to go about their business in a lawful and private manner. That is why you need a court order to look into the affairs of companies. That is why you need a court order to step onto the property of companies.
And it is a political issue if people start to think that they have a right to know what companies are doing. Companies are NOT socialist instruments for the benefit of society. Well, at least not yet, unless Chavez takes over.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 15:12:45 GMT -5
yes, HA, but they give up their right to privacy when they come with hands stretched out begging for help.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 15:14:17 GMT -5
s for bankers and government, well, they should have expected this BUT they still have some right to privacy to deal with their business. yes they do and no they don't. as soon as they come to the government with their hands outstretched they give up that right to full privacy and agree to full disclosure . . . especially in light of the fact that [it seems] their practices haven't changed and they are still abusing. as long as your business is in your hands, HA, run it as you wish . . . but as soon as you come to HabsRus looking for a bail-out we'll want to know the ins and the outs of the business and Skilly'll start looking into your stats . . . and the fact that sometimes you aren't all that Cranky might come out! The handouts don't make the banks public institutions. They are not publicly run hospitals or day care centers. They are still legal entities hat have legal protections. We can not jump with joy about revealing all that goes on in a bank and then scream for privacy about ourselves. The principle is the same and it doesn't stop at our nose. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 15:16:22 GMT -5
yes, HA, but they give up their right to privacy when they come with hands stretched out begging for help. How? Give me the justification of nullifying their legal rights. Were they made public banks and owned by the public? How? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 15:20:54 GMT -5
BTW, if the standard of privacy is taking/receiving money from the public, then should we have 24/7 cameras mounted on the forehead of UI and welfare recipients? Or is there a different standard for them?
Just wondering......
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 22, 2010 15:26:56 GMT -5
BTW, if the standard of privacy is taking/receiving money from the public, then should we have 24/7 cameras mounted on the forehead of UI and welfare recipients? Or is there a different standard for them? Just wondering...... Hey, I like that idea.....for a select few, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 22, 2010 16:32:01 GMT -5
Well, it really is kinda unfair .... I believe Swedish media black out laws are stricter than here, but he is entitled to a fair trial, a trial where there is no prior influence of the public beforehand. Innocent until proven guilty and all that .... Well, it's kinda of unfair.....to publish information that can lead to deaths of others. What about information where government lied to us. Isn't it unfair of government to put soldiers at risk fighting a war that was based on lies? This government you speak of didn't concern themselves with soldiers deaths then. Hypocrisy is a two way street in ALL matters. How is this different than any other facet of the law? If someone breaks into my house am I allowed to break into theirs? Kinda unfair isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 22, 2010 16:35:22 GMT -5
BTW, companies are legal "entities" with responsibilities and PRIVLIDGES. Including the right to go about their business in a lawful and private manner. That is why you need a court order to look into the affairs of companies. That is why you need a court order to step onto the property of companies. And it is a political issue if people start to think that they have a right to know what companies are doing. Companies are NOT socialist instruments for the benefit of society. Well, at least not yet, unless Chavez takes over. Receiving money from the government has nothing to do with delving into the affairs of private institutions. You said the answer in your answer. Lawful. If there is reasonable cause to suggest a company is working outside the law then their entire enterprise is lawfully allowed to be scrutinized. In particular, in the US, Congress can do a wholescale investigation on their affairs ... just ask baseball and hockey. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 19:59:28 GMT -5
BTW, companies are legal "entities" with responsibilities I know that some think that they are responsible only to their shareholders and to making the most money that they can. I'll grant that up to a point. I'll grant that, too, up to a point. but when the company decides to go hat in hand asking for help from the public purse then the public/people have the right to know. I think in this case the politicians did poorly on behalf of their constituents and were irresponsible in handing the money out. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 20:03:00 GMT -5
The handouts don't make the banks public institutions. no, but they become beholden to the public and responsible to the public. no argument there. which is why I don't pity the fool [insert picture of Mr. T] |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 20:11:55 GMT -5
yes, HA, but they give up their right to privacy when they come with hands stretched out begging for help. How? Give me the justification of nullifying their legal rights. Were they made public banks and owned by the public? How? the problem was that the "public" [government] either didn't do due diligence or they ignored their responsibility. the banks got away with something [interestingly enough, still are, as some bonuses are still being passed around like candy]. wiki brought it to light. I say good. Assange has been nailed with leaks himself. what goes around comes around. as to the Afghani and political leaks . . . some are troublesome. but by now everyone should know don't write anything, don't say anything, don't post anything, and don't do anything that might come back to haunt you.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 20:39:23 GMT -5
The handouts don't make the banks public institutions. no, but they become beholden to the public and responsible to the public. Do you realize that some of the bailout money was forced on some banks? Actually, a lot of them? The intent of the government was to assure liquidity, not control. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 20:41:41 GMT -5
BTW, companies are legal "entities" with responsibilities and PRIVLIDGES. Including the right to go about their business in a lawful and private manner. That is why you need a court order to look into the affairs of companies. That is why you need a court order to step onto the property of companies. And it is a political issue if people start to think that they have a right to know what companies are doing. Companies are NOT socialist instruments for the benefit of society. Well, at least not yet, unless Chavez takes over. Receiving money from the government has nothing to do with delving into the affairs of private institutions. You said the answer in your answer. Lawful. If there is reasonable cause to suggest a company is working outside the law then their entire enterprise is lawfully allowed to be scrutinized. In particular, in the US, Congress can do a wholescale investigation on their affairs ... just ask baseball and hockey. And this is the point. We want and accept that Wiki will give us "information" on a bank. But until the bank has done something wrong, then it's a gross breach of it's privacy. As for "public" ownership. The banks are not hospitals. They are owned by the shareholders and only THEY are allowed to inquire/investigate. IF a bank breaks the law, then the general public has some level of rights to know what is going on. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2010 21:00:47 GMT -5
I thought I can steer the conversation and then come in with my point but it's diverging a bit.
Here is where I want to go.....
What I'm starting to see is that Wikileaks is feuling a mob mentality about privacy. We don't like banks? Let's see if they have any dirt to hang them with. Oil companies? Their next! Then let's see, what about that souvlaki place down the street? Fer sure he must be using horse meat and the Mafia must be involved because one of the waiters is named Gino. Let's "leak" him and see if we are right.
Then who? Who does the mob want dirt on next? McDonalds? Microsoft? The vendor down the street? You? Yeah, YOU. Why not you?
For centuries, we created laws and rights in order to protect ourselves from governments and mobs. Until said time that people or companies did anything wrong, they expected to go about their business without threat or intimidation from government or mobs. Innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until the mob decides innocence.
We are crossing into dangerous territory where we perceive some kind of "greater good" out of this. It isn't. With modern technology, we are opening a very, very dangerous door that will come back to haunt us.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 22, 2010 21:22:59 GMT -5
The slippery slope is quite a good point, HA. And believe it or not....it may be just what the powers-that-be want to happen. They and their corporate pals can take the hit. They've got high-powered lawyers to muddle things up for years. The little guys and gals don't. And so perhaps it's a clever ploy......get the public so angry at the MAN. So much so, that it filters down to what you're suggesting. Then the MAN has total control.....even over our privacy....whatever that really is. Our list of rights seems to be getting shorter all the time. I'm with you on that front. If there's a law being broken, fine. Like Bernie Madoff. Like Conrad Black. Like the Sponsorship Scandal. But not so far-reaching that they can go peering into everybody's underwear drawer whenever they feel like it. Let's leave that for Hollywood actors and pro-athletes.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 21:48:14 GMT -5
no, but they become beholden to the public and responsible to the public. Do you realize that some of the bailout money was forced on some banks? Actually, a lot of them? The intent of the government was to assure liquidity, not control. were they forced to take the money? no. but they did. and then they continued to lavish perks and bonuses on themselves. at the very least, bad optics. a "thank you" and not touching the money if it was indeed forced on them would have gone a lot further to engender themselves to the public. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2010 22:01:14 GMT -5
I thought I can steer the conversation and then come in with my point well there's the whole problem right there -- you've never been known for your subtlety yet you try now? ;D the door is already wide wide open. the facebook comment [don't post or it'll come back to bite you] was quite serious . . . and the proverbial tip of the iceberg. there is nothing hidden. I know that cookies on my computer direct the advertising that I see in banner ads. I knew that my grocery purchases were being tracked. but I didn't know how invasive things were until last week. I had bought some things at Home Depot for some renos, and [purposefully] bought too much, figuring that I might mess up and need replacements. my job wasn't that bad [pat on the back to self] so I returned the excess as I knew I could. problem: left the receipt at home [dummy]. they asked how I paid [debit] and said "no problem"; swiped my card, and brought up the bill -- everything is on record. I now pay cash for purchases. fwiw, I'm with you on this -- business has a right to privacy, individuals and governments have a right to have their private conversations kept private . . . and if Assange wants to play the "the people have a right to know" game then he should expect his opposition to play the "we'll tell the people what we want them to know" game. Where are Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts when you need them? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 23, 2010 1:44:19 GMT -5
Do you realize that some of the bailout money was forced on some banks? Actually, a lot of them? The intent of the government was to assure liquidity, not control. were they forced to take the money? no. but they did. and then they continued to lavish perks and bonuses on themselves. at the very least, bad optics. a "thank you" and not touching the money if it was indeed forced on them would have gone a lot further to engender themselves to the public. Actually, they were forced. Paulson literally gathered the bank presidents and forced them to accept bail outs. Here is what I can find with a quick scan and I saw several documentaries about this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EW YORK - The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents released Wednesday have confirmed. Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents reveal "talking points" used by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the Oct. 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required "in any circumstance," whether the banks found them appealing or not. Paulson also told the bankers it would not be prudent to opt out of the program because doing so "would leave you vulnerable and exposed." It's no secret that some of the banks had to be pressured to participate, with several CEOs saying they had been strongly encouraged to take the funds. But the documents are the first proof of the government's insistence. "These documents show our government exercising unrestrained power over the private sector," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, who was a top aide when Paulson was at Treasury, yesterday said, "Secretary Paulson was not one to read talking points at meetings." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's office did not respond to requests for comment. The outcome of that fateful meeting - it resulted in the government taking direct stakes in the banks through $125 billion in preferred stock purchases - marked a shift in the government's strategy to fixing the financial system. The Treasury had first decided to use a chunk of the $700 billion financial bailout package to pay for taking partial ownership stakes in banks, rather than use the money to buy rotten debts from financial institutions. The idea was that the investments would instill confidence in the system and get banks to lend again, following the credit-market freeze. The meeting was hosted by Paulson, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairwoman Sheila Bair, and Geithner, who was then president of the New York Fed. Banks that were initially required to accept the funds were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., State Street Corp., Bank of New York Mellon, and Bank of America Corp., including the soon-to-be-acquired Merrill Lynch. Paulson wanted healthy institutions that did not necessarily need capital to participate in the program first, to remove any stigma that might be associated with a bailout. He told reporters the intervention was "what we must do to restore confidence in our financial system." The Treasury has since invested a total of $199.1 billion in more than 550 of the nation's banks, according to government data. Of that amount, $1.16 billion has been returned by 12 institutions. Several other recipients of the funds, including JPMorgan and American Express Co., have stressed their desire to return the money as soon as possible. The funds have become burdensome for banks due to the increased government scrutiny and limits on compensation that are contingent with the investment. www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/05/15/first_nine_banks_were_forced_to_take_bailouts/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 23, 2010 2:00:27 GMT -5
The slippery slope is quite a good point, HA. And believe it or not....it may be just what the powers-that-be want to happen. They and their corporate pals can take the hit. They've got high-powered lawyers to muddle things up for years. The little guys and gals don't. And so perhaps it's a clever ploy......get the public so angry at the MAN. So much so, that it filters down to what you're suggesting. Then the MAN has total control.....even over our privacy....whatever that really is. Our list of rights seems to be getting shorter all the time. I'm with you on that front. If there's a law being broken, fine. Like Bernie Madoff. Like Conrad Black. Like the Sponsorship Scandal. But not so far-reaching that they can go peering into everybody's underwear drawer whenever they feel like it. Let's leave that for Hollywood actors and pro-athletes. I'm not sure that this is some conspiracy with Assange as the go boy. The guy has too much God syndrome in him to be part of any great scheme. What you can bet on is that governments will use this to bury themselves into more secrecy and/or or tighter laws....while shaving our faces off from the excessive microwaves of their surveillance equipment. Don't complain though because it's about stopping pedophiles and terrorist. Yup. Fer sure. Regardless of what governments want to do.......the sheep are shearing themselves while baying about evil banks and oil companies. They want to feel empowered meanwhile, they are trampling all over the laws that have kept them relatively safe. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 23, 2010 6:56:46 GMT -5
were they forced to take the money? no. but they did. and then they continued to lavish perks and bonuses on themselves. at the very least, bad optics. a "thank you" and not touching the money if it was indeed forced on them would have gone a lot further to engender themselves to the public. Actually, they were forced. Paulson literally gathered the bank presidents and forced them to accept bail outs. hmm . . . din't realize that. changes things a bit . . . but optics are still bad in that they] some took the money and gave themselves bonuses and perks for doing such a good job. if I'd have been in charge of bailout packages [there's probably good reason that I'm not] I'da just said "we'll work with the banks" . . . and possibly come up with some re-mortgage scheme[/i] plan so that people could somehow hold on to their houses. deferred payments? interest only payments? something of the sort . . . and Obama would have looked like a caring leader . . . and the banks wouldn't have a bunch of crumbling houses due to foreclosures. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 23, 2010 8:25:50 GMT -5
Do you realize that some of the bailout money was forced on some banks? Actually, a lot of them? The intent of the government was to assure liquidity, not control. were they forced to take the money? no. but they did. and then they continued to lavish perks and bonuses on themselves. at the very least, bad optics. a "thank you" and not touching the money if it was indeed forced on them would have gone a lot further to engender themselves to the public. Indeed! There was a lot published about those bonuses and the celebration parties those monies funded. And, they're still not out of the woods yet. Check out this video when you have the time. www.realecontv.com/videos/government-corruption/local-government-collapse.htmlLocal and State governments haven't stopped sliding and there's no guarantee there will be a federal bailout in the future. Unfortunately, far too many of the same people have been calling the shots for far too long. And when they're called to the carpet, they produce one set of books for the investigations and hide the other set that tells the true story (ref: the baseball congressional hearings a few years back). If the issue involves public funds then I feel there should be no stone left unturned. If this is proven not to be the case, then we get people asking questions; and rightly so. But, it seems like it doesn't matter which way the dialog is going. For years now voters and stock holders hear what they want to, while governments and institutions say what they want. Enter Wikileaks. Do you shoot the reporter, or the one who leaks the information in the first place? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 23, 2010 14:00:01 GMT -5
To me it doen't matter if Assange is a villian or a saint. Villians are entitled to freedom of spech too.
What matters is the message. Is it true or false.
If I learned that Grabovski raped a nun and I exposed him in HabsRus, I would be a hero. If I said the same thing about a hero like Subban, I become a traitor. Don Cherry makes a living doing this.
The important thing is was the story about the nun true or false. Slander or investigative reporting.
I'm glad we live in a country where reporters have freedom of the press.
I have never seen a worse example of slanderous half truths than those of Whitman, Brown, Fiorina and Boxer used in the past Claifornia election. They were far worse than Assange.
The prisons in China are full of dissidents who spread anti-government truths. Don't want to live there.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 23, 2010 18:23:02 GMT -5
Regardless of what governments want to do.......the sheep are shearing themselves while baying about evil banks and oil companies. They want to feel empowered meanwhile, they are trampling all over the laws that have kept them relatively safe. True...cutting off our noses to spite our faces....BUT.... I don't for one second think that big money, big oil, big multi-national, big-anything are all entirely above board. Corruption in various forms has been/is/will always be a part of that power world...and they'll continue to make sure they have laws written and more than enough lawyers on hand. As Carlin said, "It's a big club....and you ain't in it." I believe that fully. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2010 1:54:59 GMT -5
Actually, they were forced. Paulson literally gathered the bank presidents and forced them to accept bail outs. hmm . . . din't realize that. changes things a bit . . . but optics are still bad in that they] some took the money and gave themselves bonuses and perks for doing such a good job. . You are the fourth person who I came across the internet that didn't know this in the last few days. Which means two things, I need an effen life (or at least a hobby) or the leftist leaning main stream media is willfully shoving this under the rug in their attempt to paint banks as evil that need lashing and leashes. You ALWAYS hear about how much money their executives are making and how they are perpetrators of everything evil, but the forced bailouts and control? Not so much...if at all. One day, we will have neutral and honest media....and unicorns. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2010 2:19:11 GMT -5
I don't for one second think that big money, big oil, big multi-national, big-anything are all entirely above board. Corruption in various forms has been/is/will always be a part of that power world...and they'll continue to make sure they have laws written and more than enough lawyers on hand. No they are not honest. But neither are they evil. They are there to serve their interest, not society. We want to hold companies to a different standard from the common man but the reality is that Mr. Common Man will look after himself and his family first. The only difference is scale. I sat on a BOD and voted to fire my company (I supplied them but they found cheaper source) as well as outsource, close plants and throw people out of work. Was I evil? Well, yes, but more importantly, the company had to outsource to remain competitive. If that meant putting people out of work, so be it. Outside the local WalMart, you can ask the former employees of said multinational was the worst they ever worked for and the owners are complete a-holes, they would agree with you....and then push their carts into the store to get the 2 o'clock special. Written 3,000 years ago...... It's easy to judge a bad tree, but what can the tree do if it's sitting in poor soil. And if the tree grows, sometimes it has to use the nutrients from the surrounding trees. Is it it's fault if that is the nature of the tree? And if you cut that tree down, will not others take it's place and do the same thing? The tree does it, the flowers do it and so do the weeds. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 24, 2010 7:27:26 GMT -5
There's a point there for sure, HA. When it comes right down to it....it still is dog eat dog; survival of the fittest; desperate measures in desperate times; etc. I'd hate to think that at our cores we're just like the trees in that 3,000-year-old analogy.....but we haven't really evolved at all much, have we? Not when it comes to pure survival. But in these cases, we're not talking about survival, or even your company's example you gave above. We're talking about lying, cheating, and stealing out of outright greed and accumulation of more power and wealth. I can't extrapolate that tree analogy to fit those scenarios. That's detachment and rationalization at its best. Ferreting out that crap, exposing it, and exacting justice is quite alright with me. I'm sure it bothered the bejeebuz out of you to watch Chretien sit there with his golf balls during the sponsorship scandal investigation. You know he had something to do with it....and likely benefitted from it.....but there he was: lying, rationalizing, deflecting. Should he have to pay for his part in it, or be allowed to get away with it? Is he just a tree taking nutrients from other trees? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2010 13:06:42 GMT -5
There's a point there for sure, HA. When it comes right down to it....it still is dog eat dog; survival of the fittest; desperate measures in desperate times; etc. I'd hate to think that at our cores we're just like the trees in that 3,000-year-old analogy.....but we haven't really evolved at all much, have we? Not when it comes to pure survival. But in these cases, we're not talking about survival, or even your company's example you gave above. We're talking about lying, cheating, and stealing out of outright greed and accumulation of more power and wealth. I can't extrapolate that tree analogy to fit those scenarios. That's detachment and rationalization at its best. Ferreting out that crap, exposing it, and exacting justice is quite alright with me. I'm sure it bothered the bejeebuz out of you to watch Chretien sit there with his golf balls during the sponsorship scandal investigation. You know he had something to do with it....and likely benefitted from it.....but there he was: lying, rationalizing, deflecting. Should he have to pay for his part in it, or be allowed to get away with it? Is he just a tree taking nutrients from other trees? I'm not defending the bad apples...or trees...or weed infested CEO's. At best, I'm trying to bring some balance to what all too often a witch hunt of companies. Maybe my views are slanted because I played on the other side. Anywho..... Yes, Chretien and his balls made me into a devout water-boarding believer. Much like McStupid, I never bought his shtick or his lies and yet, there he was, year after year, election after election. Yes, I'm right of Canadian center but still, wasn't it and isn't obvious? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 24, 2010 15:35:45 GMT -5
There's a point there for sure, HA. When it comes right down to it....it still is dog eat dog; survival of the fittest; desperate measures in desperate times; etc. I'd hate to think that at our cores we're just like the trees in that 3,000-year-old analogy.....but we haven't really evolved at all much, have we? Not when it comes to pure survival. But in these cases, we're not talking about survival, or even your company's example you gave above. We're talking about lying, cheating, and stealing out of outright greed and accumulation of more power and wealth. I can't extrapolate that tree analogy to fit those scenarios. That's detachment and rationalization at its best. Ferreting out that crap, exposing it, and exacting justice is quite alright with me. I'm sure it bothered the bejeebuz out of you to watch Chretien sit there with his golf balls during the sponsorship scandal investigation. You know he had something to do with it....and likely benefitted from it.....but there he was: lying, rationalizing, deflecting. Should he have to pay for his part in it, or be allowed to get away with it? Is he just a tree taking nutrients from other trees? To a right of right yank, a Right of Center Canadian is still on the sidewalk. I see the leftist California legislature going after those evil billionaires to get tax money to feed the indigent, and I see Tiger Woods moving to tax free Florida and instead of paying a little to California from the billionaire we get nothing. I see Lebron James, who could earn millions wherever he chooses to live moving to Florida to pay nothing in state tax. Rich people make moves to save money in taxes? Hmmmm...... Accountants will always search out ways to reduce taxes and welfare states are left with welfare collectors instead of earners and contributors. Merry Christmas to all from the GrinchinLA.  I'm not defending the bad apples...or trees...or weed infested CEO's. At best, I'm trying to bring some balance to what all too often a witch hunt of companies. Maybe my views are slanted because I played on the other side. Anywho..... Yes, Chretien and his balls made me into a devout water-boarding believer. Much like McStupid, I never bought his shtick or his lies and yet, there he was, year after year, election after election. Yes, I'm right of Canadian center but still, wasn't it and isn't obvious? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 26, 2010 19:08:34 GMT -5
Interesting article....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ezra Levant
Bottom line: Rape is rape
Sexual assault charges must be taken seriously even if accused is a liberal darling
ulian Assange, the Australian hacker who runs WikiLeaks, is accused of rape in Sweden.
This has not caused some of Assange’s defenders to change their opinion of him.
Instead, it has caused them to change their opinion of rape accusations.
Heather Mallick is one such supporter. She’s a columnist for the Toronto Star and a feminist — just ask her. But she’s also a harsh critic of America and the war on terror, just like Assange.
So she’s made a choice about which is more important to her.
On Tuesday, she trivialized the rape accusations, saying Assange’s accuser is just mad that he “didn’t phone her after she slept with him. Here’s what you do with a guy like that. You marry him and keep raising the subject for 21 years. Priceless.”
Alas, there are two women in Sweden who accuse Assange of rape, so Mallick’s advice could only work for one of them.
And Assange really isn’t the marrying type — a former cult member, a rootless fugitive who sleeps in a different bed every night.
Naomi Wolf, a leading U.S. feminist, has also put her anti-war beliefs ahead of her feminism. She says the rape charges against Assange are the work of “international dating police.”
That’s what Assange’s supporters have been spinning for a month. But last week several newspapers, including The Guardian, which has a close working relationship with WikiLeaks, published the police complaints filed by the Swedish women.
One woman says Assange forced her to remove her clothing, ripped her necklace, forced her legs apart and was “violent.” She thought he tore his condom on purpose, and refused to get an AIDS test when she demanded one.
The second woman said she woke up in the morning to find Assange having unprotected sex with her. She, too, demanded an AIDS test. Assange refused.
Wolf made her dismissive remarks before these police reports were publicized. But Mallick doesn’t have that excuse.
We’ve seen this woman-on-woman cannibalism before. Wolf and other feminists took the 1990s off when Bill Clinton was in the White House. Despite a parade of victims from Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky, America’s feminists decided they’d forgive a sexual predator as president if he was a Democrat — the same way they did for Teddy Kennedy ever since Chappaquiddick.
And then there’s Roman Polanski, the Hollywood filmmaker. Polanski drugged and repeatedly raped a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in the 1970s. The girl testified that she repeatedly begged Polanski to stop, and was afraid of him, but that he forced himself on her. As he raped her again and again, she continued to say “no,” but he didn’t give a damn.
But Polanski makes movies, and he’s an impeccable liberal. So feminists rush to his rescue, too. Whoopi Goldberg told America “it wasn’t ‘rape-rape’. It was something else.” Got it? A 13-year-old girl who is drugged and repeatedly raped isn’t really raped if it’s a great artist doing the raping.
A philandering president who preys on secretaries and interns isn’t a bully or a sexual harasser, if he’s a liberal.
And an allegedly violent man accused of forcing himself on women in Sweden is a great catch to the Toronto Star, if he published thousands of classified national security documents including the private social security numbers of U.S. soldiers, the names and locations of Afghan human-rights activists secretly co-operating with the U.S. army, and revealed covert anti-terrorism missions in Yemen.
The charges against Julian Assange are not that he was a bad date, or that he didn’t call women back. It’s that he is a rapist. If those charges are false, you’d think he’d want to get back to Sweden as soon as possible to clear things up, not fight extradition there like his life depende
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 27, 2010 12:38:56 GMT -5
Ahh yes ... and the "right" have him tried and convicted already .... (btw I'm neither left or right, I'm one of those independents).
Even the story this right wing journalist writes, you can drive a tractor trailer through all the holes ...
|
|
