Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange
Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.
Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.
We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.
So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:
**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."
**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."
**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."
**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."
**Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."
**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."
And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!
WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.
I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.
But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?
But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)
Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?
Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.
Instead, secrets killed them.
For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.
Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.
And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.
I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.
P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.
P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
342 Comments so far
Show AllI didn't know that supporting Assange was about opposing the Democratic party.
Moore is a critic of the Democratic party, His only come in your eyes was his failure to promote third party candidates. That is based on your assessment that promotion of third party candidates is the ultimate litmus test for determining who is on our side and who is not. I called that "weak and silly."
So, if someone agrees with you about one thing (supporting Assange) but disagrees with you about another (seeing the Democratic party as the source of all evil and the promotion of third party candidates as the ultimate solution) then they are a hypocrite?
Talk about hypocrisy - implicit in your posts here is that you are an enabler and apologist for partisan electoral political system. Otherwise it would not be possible for you to see support for this or that party or candidate as a test of whether a person is good or evil. That then makes you a hypocrite for attacking Moore for the very thing that you yourself are guilty of. The difference between you and Moore, though, is that you are like a broken record, repeating the same shallow idea and refusing to think beyond it, while Moore actually does things that challenge the rulers and actually takes risks. He goes beyond partisan politics. You insist that he, and everyone else, stay within the confines of partisan politics, and your only complaint is about which party or which candidate they seem to promote within that system.
Pot, meet kettle.
If you think that the voting choices an individual makes are so important - so important that it overshadows Moore's stand to help Assange - and if you think that making a certain choice within the electoral political system is the most important thing a person can do, then you are saying that you believe in the system, that you think it can be made to work. That means you are defending the system, while Moore and Asssange attack it. This silly litmus test about candidates and parties you try to apply is merely camouflage for that fact - you support the system, you are an enabler and an apologist and you attack any who challenge the system on any pretext you can find.
I will take Moore's so-called "enabling" and "apologizing" for the Democratic party - coupled with his support for Labor and Assange and his attacks on the ruling class and Capitalism - any day over your hatred for all things Democrat coupled with a fierce and relentless support for the existing political system. Any day. No comparison.
This opposition to "the duopoly" that many here express is merely some sort of faux radicalism, tough talk, to disguise what is otherwise a very strong defense of the existing system. It sounds radical, while it is not. In that it is very similar to Obama and the Democrats, ironically - make a lot of noises that sound sort of left wing, while actually promoting and defending the system - and not at all like Moore.
You are just like Obama and so many Democrats - all lefty on the surface, sounding kinda radical - but then deeply conservative to the core, and when it matters. Moore - at worst - fell for the "lesser of two evils" practical crap on the surface, but he is deeply in opposition to the ruling class and on the side of Labor and the working class people, to the core and when it matters.
What did Lincoln say about that? "Invincible in peace, invisible in war." Those who sound tough, but then are not to be found when the battle is actually on.
What's that clanging sound I just heard? I think the pot just collided with the kettle.
But doesn't his "enabling" and "apologizing" for the Dems amount to support for the existing system?
"Moore - at worst - fell for the "lesser of two evils" practical crap on the surface, but he is deeply in opposition to the ruling class and on the side of Labor and the working class people, to the core and when it matters."
So, let me get this straight - Moore, in spite of the fact that he is "a lesser evilist" (and his support of Assange is not proof that he has changed his stance on this), is, nonetheless, "deeply in opposition to the ruling class and on the side of Labor and the working class people, to the core and when it matters", whereas someone who condemns Dems, and Moore as an enabler of them is, ipso facto, not? And how, pray tell, do you come to that, IMO, rather bizarre conclusion?
Boy you really loved his movies, didn't you, and, apparently their worth negates any and all critique of his other activities, rather like the Obamabots who loved Obama's speeches and persona and overlooked all the rest .....
Yes, correct.
I come to this "bizarre conclusion" by speaking with him personally.
I am saying that promoting Greens over Dems is not substantially different than promoting Dems over Repubs.
I don't hold Moore up as a hero nor claim that he is perfect, and I disagree with him about the usefulness of the Democratic party. But he certainly has produced a body of work that is pro-Labor, anti-corporate and anti-Capitalist. That is more important than partisan politics.
We need to break out of this comic book view of the world, with evil cabals plotting vast complex conspiracies and larger than life heroes and villains. The real world does not work that way.
Your antipathy to Moore is, in my view, a function of your desire to wage a sales and marketing campaign on behalf of the Green party. You are much more invested in that effort than Moore is in promoting the Democratic party.
Ah, so speaking with someone personally is the way you determine who is "for real" and who is not. Shucks, TA, why don't you and I "speak personally", or have you no interest in finding out if I am "for real"? Is this sort of like looking in someone's eyes as Bush did with Putin?
"I am saying that promoting Greens over Dems is not substantially different than promoting Dems over Repubs."
So, what i am doing, with regard to electoral politics, is not "substantially different" than what Moore is doing, apparently?
"he certainly has produced a body of work that is pro-Labor, anti-corporate and anti-Capitalist. That is more important than partisan politics."
So, if someone "produces a body of work that is etc., etc, " one can claim you as a "defender"? Hmmm, does Nader's body of work, e.g. count? Or, once one enters electoral politics, is such "a body of work" automatically discounted? if so, then the next time you speak with him personally, please tell Mike that his dabbling in such a trivial area risks losing your support. What, exactly, constitutes a "body of work" that qualifies for your overlooking the "inconvenience" of supporting electoral politics? making movies? Rather elitist criteria, don't you think? I like his movies, but dislike his politics, how's that, will that do? Somehow i doubt it .....
"We need to break out of this comic book view of the world, with evil cabals plotting vast complex conspiracies and larger than life heroes and villains. The real world does not work that way."
Amen to that - it's something i have been arguing as well (although I would ask if you actually believe that) - however you leave out the issue of whether folks are "indirectly" serving the vast "conspiracy" that is "capitalism", or "serving the interests of the upper class against those of the working class", I suppose because you wish to reserve those descriptions for folks like myself. I could, of course, argue that i don't consider Moore the "enemy", just another one of those who "indirectly" serve those same interests, using my perennial farmer/cow/bucket analogy, but you would not permit me that argument, now would you?
"Your antipathy to Moore is, in my view, a function of your desire to wage a sales and marketing campaign on behalf of the Green party."
My "antipathy to Moore", to the extent there is one, consists of pointing out the reality that when push comes to shove, he, like so many other "progressive" gurus, after all his "body of work", expressing the concerns of the masses, as it were, uses the cred he gets in so doing to herd them back into the fold. Should he cease and desist in so doing and urge open revolt against the parties, electorally or otherwise, i will change my view.
Hmmm, how is my so called "sales and marketing campaign on behalf of the Green party" substantially different from the one you are waging on behalf of Moore? Is it because i do it more often? Hey, show me a better 3rd party or indy, and i'll "sell" them, because i do believe in fighting in the electoral arena. If it is the Greens, specifically, you denigrate, say so (actually I think you already have). If it is electoral politics of any stripe then Moore is equally guilty .....
"You are much more invested in that effort than Moore is in promoting the Democratic party."
So it is the degree of "investment" that counts? I'll bet Moore has "invested" more in the advancement of Dems than i have in Greens, moore's the pity .....
Your comments and that of Ms. Darrow ignore the recent changes in Moore's positions. I think he is evolving. A pity that so many of us are not.
And what "changes", vis-a-vis Dems might those be?
Evolution is as evolution does ....
I get to be irrelevant, too? Such an honor.
I think we should never, ever forgive or listen to anyone who ever supported, voted for or promoted the Democratic party in any way whatsoever. Nothing is more important than a person's position on the Democratic party - that overrides everything else. Life would be so good without the duopoly. It is the source of all of our problems. Why, if it were not for the duopoly, why we could just vote against the people in power and they would tuck their tails between their legs and slink off never to be heard from again!
By all means, let's purify this progressive movement and purge all heretics. This means we must oppose at all times and never listen to organized Labor; the Black community; the public school teachers and advocates; all of the progressive organizations: PDA, DFA, DSA, the environmental groups and activists; the peace advocates; the GLBT community; all of the rural people who switched to voting Democratic after decades of being solidly Republican; half of the voters in the country, and on an on and on. They are all evil heretics! They must all be destroyed! We must adhere to the one true doctrine!
Old tired argument accusing those who expose Democrats as Republican clones as "purists'.
Don't distract from the issue, the one about Michael Moore being a Democrat apologist and enabler, like you.
Oh, I get called purist all of the time. All leftists do. That is not the point. What are you being a purist about? For or against the Democratic party is a weak and silly place to draw the line. That is the point.
Dennab,
Thank you.
A two-word dismissal that addresses nothing. Moore's trying to steal Assange's thunder. He's another phony and hypocrite American pretending to be what he's not.
Your opinion only.
But fun to read
While I appreciate what Michael Moore has done, I do agree with your critiques.
Mr. Moore needs to abandon the Democratic Party, not reinforce them. Hence when 2012 comes around, he should not support Obama in particular or any Democrats in general.
Wow someone hear who isn't worshiping Moore, my first comments were flagged and removed since I said Moore's only in this to make more money . I bet this all will be in his next movie .
For the low low price of 10$ YOU can be a liberal , in 2 hours you'll become an instant activist since you sat though a semi-real, semi-fiction movie with Moore ranting about how things are so unfair . All this keeping in mind the man didn't grow up in Flint and didn't put his movie production company anywhere in Michigan .
Why are people repeating right wing talking points about Moore here? Actually, there is nothing unusual about that. I should say "why are people posting right wing talking points and trying to disguise that they are?" I guess the answer to that question is obvious - in order to sneak them into the discussion and not be called on them.
Every Michigan factory city has blue collar working class suburbs, and it is routine for people to say "I am from Detroit" even though they might be from Warren, for example. The fact that Moore was born in Flint but grew up in Davison is meaningless.
Moore's film company is just up the road from where I am sitting - in Michigan. Moore also founded a major film festival here, restored the historic theater downtown, and contributes to and is involved in many progressive projects in the area.
I disagree with Moore's advocacy of the Democratic party and it pisses me off that we have right wing smears against him here - compelling some of us to defend him - and that those of us defending him are being accused of being shills for the Democratic party, or the "duopoly" or the "ptb." This is just insane lunacy. While radicals and leftists are often accused of being lunatics, that does not mean that being a lunatic makes one left wing or radical.
WE SHALL PROTECT
UNDER OUR SHELL
JULIAN ASSANGE
AN ANGEL HIGH
BORN IN JULY
a mere year
my brother
from mine
- Gg Re
The true horror is that now Sarah Palin is on all the corporate media outlets in one form or another. With "Citizens United" in place, can anyone doubt that she will be the new face of the "Billionaire class" with "Common Folk" appeal? The Neo-Hitler is a fox.
President Obama was elected because he falsely portrayed himself as the reformer that the vast majority of the people wanted. The people elected a Black man, with a muslim name. Did they really expect a bag-man for the corps?
The only silver-lining I can take from this, is that the the lines are being clearly drawn. It is becoming easier and easier to see where the two sides diverge. It's public versus private, it's people versus profit, it's rich versus everyone else.
" ...it's rich versus everyone else."
Rather, "it's the rich versus everyone they can't buy off."
The rich have a lot of allies who support them to their own detriment.
As much as I love the thrust of his work, including supporting Assange, I can't help feel a bit of disgust at Michael Moore's penchant for grandstanding. Sure, I recognize that part of his charm is his ability as a storyteller and yes, a performance artist of sorts, but on the other hand, and in this case, it starts to feel like opportunism. Not sure why I feel this way...
Vermont: Is there anything uglier than planting unsavory allegations disguised as just a hunch? "Not sure why I feel this way." If you have never read the play, "School for Scandal," you should. After all, you'd probably find yourself in its dialog.
delete
Right. We shouldn't offend the wealthy by saying everyone else should have decent healthcare. We shouldn't offend the military-industrial complex by supporting those who expose their crimes.
What kind of an 'activist' are you anyway?
I think you are a created identity.
Or the Eveready bunny.
Not sure which.
Re: attacks on Moore.
There is a desperate need for those of us who are fed up with Empire's murder, theft, and destruction, to put aside petty squabbles and ad hominem attacks on potential allies. We all live with some degree of hypocrisy, or conflicting and confused politics, but if we don't start uniting in order to stop the Corporate War Machine, then we will end up groveling over the elites leftover scraps.
Q: It's more sinister than that. Michael Moore is HATED by the right. So it's logical to deduce that those in this forum picking at his motives and reputation are doing so to deliberately impair his credibility and lessen the impact of his (documentaries) message. Now why does that ring so familiar to the right wing M.O.?
I have found most of the criticism here of M.M. to be spot on and worthwhile to the discussion.
Most have applauded Michael's essay while putting forth excellent points about Moore's support for the dem wing of the war party. I don't see anything wrong with this at all.
As for his documentaries: I have enjoyed all of them, but they are far from perfect. Am I "deliberately trying to impair his credibility" by pointing out that some of the stats in his documentaries should be put in better context? (e.g. when he sites the number of gun-deaths in the U.S. compared to other countries without acknowledging the relevant percentages of population - Bowling for Columbine).
S.R. I enjoy reading your comments, but I think you are not always accurate when you assume other's intentions.
I thought Capitalism a Love Story was his least informative and creative documentary. I was going to walk out except i didn't drive there. Most of it was what i had gotten from MSM. And to be honest, it promoted the Church as the answer to many of our social ills. For me, personally, and no one need agree, i find that very unhelpful and in fact, part of the problem.
I believe he is sincere, so i don't agree with those who accuse him of having nefarious purposes. Admittedly, his personae isn't my cup of tea - very joe six pack, etc. I get the feeling that is part of who he is, which is fine with me. It just doesn't speak to who i am, and it is a big part of his mass appeal, i realize.
When i have seen him on amy goodman of late, i did sense that he felt a little embarrassed about his unrelenting faith in obama. But i see this as someone who holds on to his belief in a Church that is having its own apocalypse. He isn't deeply creative in the sense of being a harbinger of the new paradigm, which is frankly what i believe Assange is. But he has done some great documentaries and i believe he follows his truth as he knows it to be. Something that i most definitely affirm.
I haven't heard Assange bring up Jesus or Churches or priests. He doesn't look back two thousand years in order to justify his actions. He is an original, which in my humble opinion, is what is needed now. Desperately. If we don't want a perpetual re-creation of history. Constantly referencing what is 'christian' and what isn't, for example, is innane in the twenty first century. Who the heck cares? If some biblical figure or figures would or wouldn't have approved of someone's actions really means less than nothing to me.
Well, this turned out to be much longer than i intended.....
rita
I'm no loyal Michael Moore fanboy, but I deeply respect him for this. I have to give credit where it's due. Someone had the balls to help Julian.
Thank you Michael Moore.
so how do you know all that others don't know?
how do we know you're not a mole trying to poison the left's discourse?
see how easy it is to discredit you and how unhelpful a conspiracy theory is to the politics for justice and change?
conspiracy theorists are either moles on the right-wing payroll, or idiots who are useful tools for the right.
Bravo, Michael Moore!
And to those who are trashing Moore for his past not-so-progressive "transgressions," let me point out that Moore is just like the rest of us, an imperfect human being who doesn't always call the right plays. Yes, just like the rest of us. You may disagree with some of his past stances, but he is on the mark here, make no mistake, and he isn't grandstanding.
With the government and corporate media clearly bashing Assange at every turn, here we have a guy who is on OUR side, taking a courageous stand, literally putting his money where his mouth is. Make no mistake about it, the mainstream media will do a number on him for this, too, as they are always trying to cast him in the role of liberal buffoon. Surely, they will be coming for him. And don't miss Sarah Palin, et.al., gleefully calling for Moore to be shot as sunrise for supporting "terrorism."
Instead of trying to peer into Moore's every brain synapse on every issue, celebrate this as one of those "small acts of rebellion" Chris Hedges talks about, and let the corporate media do the bashing. With the iron boots everywhere, we need all the progressives we can muster ...
""Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps.""
***********
I believe that Chalmers Johnson called this a form of blowback.
Wikileaks tells the truth and only liars think it's hell.
DEAR Editor of the World:
Is there really a FREEDOM CLAUSE? Although my spirit has been alive for 234 years, I am just a very young statue, but I've heard many in Congress say that if one speaks up for freedom and liberty, that that person should be shot. Are people shooting at me and saying that I'm not real. I feel liike I should stand down.Where is this Freedom Clause, and is it real?
DEAR Statue of Liberty:
Those little people are wrong. They only believe what they see, but they hardly choose at all to see anything. Their little minds cannot comprehend that what is good for them is not good for everyone.
It would be a dreary world if there were no freedom, to think, to act, to write.The eternal light ( which you hold in your lantern) is proof that people seek what you offer.Your light must not be extinguished. No one sees all the work that you do!
NO freedom and Liberty and Truth? You might just as well say that there are no stars and stripes in a flag! YOU LIVE and will live forever, a thousand years, ten thousands ; nay ten thousand years; the fact that you exist will continue to make glad the hearts of humankind.
NO FREEDOM CLAUSE? Your flame will exist in the soul of the world forever, BUT, your flame stays growing only when people speak up. TRUTH keeps the flame burning!
TIME and the People are the truthtellers after all. Do not stand down Lady Liberty, stand tall. And YES, there is a FREEDOM CLAUSE!
Sincerely,
The ghost of the editor of a once- upon -a -time - for- REAL newspaper that really spoke to the People.
Geez, John:
She's on an island. Ducks in a barrel. Those people will be shot swimming out there. She's kind of like our government with Alcatraz; they didn't want it until someone else did.
It would be nice if people like Michael were listened to by the powers that be. Before the French Revolution many people tried to tell the king what was good for the country. This information would have saved his life and did for a little while. Unfortunately for Louis the rich and powerful had a stranglehold on his common sense. He made a stupid decision at the wrong time and in the wrong place. He literally lost his head. The power brokers of the world are in the same position as poor King Louis was. They want to do the right thing but years of bad habits are hard to break. Like an addiction they do not learn from their mistakes. Their enablers continue to feed their addiction. Meanwhile friends and family continue to suffer from the harm of the addicts addiction. The only cure is sobriety or death. Sobriety is the preferred course. Unfortunately many addicts think they are clever and continue fooling those around them because they have no conscience of the harm they do to others. Their attitude is screw them if they are that stupid. The only thing left to do is isolate the addict depriving him of support. We are left with the powers that be to isolate the addict. Let us hope that the enablers of power wake up and see that the world is watching. The world understands the crisis. The world is waiting for a solution. Cure or death. The choice is up to the addict.
GEORGE: As a former English teacher I'd give you an "A" for creativity, but the content is missing the fact that many in power know exactly what they are doing. In other words, they are complicit agents of evil. What they lack is empathy. Power may be a drug; and there's certainly the possibility of that drug becoming addictive. Your post didn't consider the fact that many hold bad intentions and could care less about others' suffering. Most people in power were privileged with good educations; so they can hardly hide behind the excuse that they didn't KNOW the extent of suffering engendered by their malevolent decisions.
KANE: Good post.
SHADOW DANCER: Your cynicism (which is certainly warranted given what's taking place in contrast with the memory of the way The Tribes once lived) is making you hilarious. Your sketches are quite good. What's the name of that character of yours in Brooklyn who predicts the future? Good stuff...
Michael Moore, I have had plenty of moments to criticize your articles but this one is exceptionally better and I thank you for your efforts to free Julian from at least some of the persecution hell. Unfortunately, it looks like Sweden is making a big mistake fighting against Julian's release.
P.S.: Another hero today is Glenn Greenwald.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/Greenwald_quits_CREW_over_WikiLeaks.html?showall
A big thanks goes to former poster "teddy" who I miss on this site but met on Alternet. He moved sort of. ::(
Jen,
i miss "teddy", too .....
Oh, yes, Teddy. I would like to see his return! Can you ask him to come back?
rita
I wished that I could bring teddy back but a few months ago, he told me on Alternet that he ran into an issue on the policy of using caps for posting and had to go after things didn't work out. He told me, maxpayne, drone, and others who he recognized by our names as being both here and on Alternet. He is still spiritually motivating when he posts but he definitely misses everyone here. I do not know if or when he will choose to return here but until then, the only way to see him is on Alternet for now. I am sorry that I am unable to fulfill your request. ::(
GOOD GRIEF! Is that what this is about, the use of CAPS? What's next, using "your" instead of "you're"?
Good heavens, is that what CD has come to? the grammatically or stylistically correct? I see comments all the time about someone's grammar or spelling, and while I try to correct my own, i will not discount another's comment if they have not. If the grammar or spelling make it difficult for me to understand what they are saying, i will ask a question in the form of "Do you mean .....?".
To give someone a hard time because they use CAPS is ridiculous. Perhaps we should stage an organized concerted protest here by all posting in CAPS. Or am I in danger of being banned for making such a suggestion?
if Moore can post bond for Assange, perhaps the least we could do is post CAPS for teddy ...
Hey, Jen, what do you think?
I am wondering about this now, aquifer....
I see a person who does about half the posts here using caps in every post. What gives?
rita
rtt,
It will be interesting to note, won't it, how this unfolds. Will anyone be now entitled to object to any post with caps used in other than a grammatically correct context? i use them to emphasize particular words in a sentence in lieu of voice tones that are, by definition, unavailable in a written forum - no ability to use bold typeface or italics.
That's why i suggested my "protest" - speech is already so restricted by the chosen thread design of this forum - now the use of caps as well? What, precisely IS (oops) the CD rule with respect to the use of caps? Only so many per sentence? per paragraph? per page? teddy was NOT the "worst offender" in this regard, as if it were an "offense' to begin with, unless of course, someone is actually keeping "count" of such things. People do keep count of various things here .....
Hmm, what's next - the number of parentheses or dashes? (uh-oh, I'm in big trouble here,,,,,,,)
I looked up the policies on using caps and I don't agree with it. I will gladly email them a request that they change their policies on caps and recommend that others do so as well. It will be their call from there. I am afraid to go any further on this matter. Yes, I know that the price for this will be having to meet him on Alternet but he isn't the only sweetheart I met there from here. Some people just have preferences picking between this site and Alternet while I am open to both.
As for grammar and spelling, there are valid criticisms some make on those making too many spelling errors and/or grammar mistakes. I usually don't call anyone out on it unless the post contains an infuriating viewpoint. Then I would respond and make a connection between their poor writing and lame view(s).
P.S.: I was hesitant to mention teddy fearing that I would get in trouble but because there is so much to thank him for, I couldn't resist letting it be known that I truly miss him here. He is doing fine on Alternet even amongst the clinging Obama supporters and the tea party silly dillies. However, if he ran into troublesome people there or someone there was not used to his bold and passionate progressive thinking, I would be one of those to step in and help out where I think I could. maxpayne, mmckinl, oregoncharles, tailcap1984 and others from here do so as well.
Jen,
i hear you, and respect your point of view. As for e-mailing the editors i have done so with a couple of simple suggestions that I thought would make the site a bit more user friendly, but that and $3.50 got me a cup of coffee, so i doubt that protesting a policy that i still don't know the parameters of would help ...
With that last part in mind, seeing as how i am an idiot with regard to computers (and, apparently, according to some posters, with regard to a number of other things as well), could you tell me how to access the "policies" with regard to these things (if for no other reason than to be able to formulate a semi-legitimate objection to them should i be so inclined)? I saw "privacy policy" and "guidelines" with respect to submissions of material, but none re "caps" and other such stuff.
Thanx!
Aquifer, come to think of it, there might be a way to "flash protest" without getting hurt after reading this article. :)
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2010/12/15-3
Jen,
Watched the video, great stuff - what do you have in mind?
Thank you, Jennifer...This is sad.
And i have noticed certain posters in particular always use caps here. I don't get it. Not at all...
rita
Jennifer, I saw the link that you posted to teddy's response to my post on Alternet. I notice that my name came up but it's quite all right.
Aquifer and Rita, teddy wrote a scathing letter and shared it with me. Here's the Alternet article under which you can see his discussion with Jennifer and me on this. Have a look.
http://www.alternet.org/media/149188
I'm not happy with any of this either and it's truly unfortunate to have to miss a great poster like this.