SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
So far, WikiLeaks have concentrated their efforts on U.S. foreign policy, from wars to diplomacy. Though little concrete action appears to have been taken in response to the leaks, their next target may spark a different reaction.
Bank of America shares fell 3 percent on Tuesday after Julian Assange hinted that he had as much as 5 GB worth of their documents revealing some shady behavior.
"We know they've made horrific acquisitions... taken massive write-downs... if they actually had to report that, they're probably technically insolvent," financial blogger Barry Ritholtz told cable news.
But we already know there's been plenty of mismanagement and even fraud on Wall Street, so what could Assange have on the Bank that we don't already know? Given their shameless theft of US assets, what could possibly embarrass them?
Maybe, however, it's not about what happens after, but what happens before WikiLeaks leaks. Ritholtz noted that maybe this is just about "shaking the tree--disturbing the status quo." And Assange has written plenty himself on the subject.
In one essay, Assange notes: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie."
So perhaps when we look for action to be taken as a result of the WikiLeaks, we're looking for the wrong thing. Instead, maybe what we're looking at is a long-term attempt to provoke a response that reveals the dysfunction within our most powerful institutions and possibly derails it by provoking an over-reaction.
Think lunch-counter sit-ins, updated. If Assange's cyber invasion is to Bankster Street what the civil rights marchers were to segregation, what are Wall Street's water cannons? And will they end up, by their reaction, shooting themselves in the foot?
I can hardly wait to find out.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
So far, WikiLeaks have concentrated their efforts on U.S. foreign policy, from wars to diplomacy. Though little concrete action appears to have been taken in response to the leaks, their next target may spark a different reaction.
Bank of America shares fell 3 percent on Tuesday after Julian Assange hinted that he had as much as 5 GB worth of their documents revealing some shady behavior.
"We know they've made horrific acquisitions... taken massive write-downs... if they actually had to report that, they're probably technically insolvent," financial blogger Barry Ritholtz told cable news.
But we already know there's been plenty of mismanagement and even fraud on Wall Street, so what could Assange have on the Bank that we don't already know? Given their shameless theft of US assets, what could possibly embarrass them?
Maybe, however, it's not about what happens after, but what happens before WikiLeaks leaks. Ritholtz noted that maybe this is just about "shaking the tree--disturbing the status quo." And Assange has written plenty himself on the subject.
In one essay, Assange notes: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie."
So perhaps when we look for action to be taken as a result of the WikiLeaks, we're looking for the wrong thing. Instead, maybe what we're looking at is a long-term attempt to provoke a response that reveals the dysfunction within our most powerful institutions and possibly derails it by provoking an over-reaction.
Think lunch-counter sit-ins, updated. If Assange's cyber invasion is to Bankster Street what the civil rights marchers were to segregation, what are Wall Street's water cannons? And will they end up, by their reaction, shooting themselves in the foot?
I can hardly wait to find out.
So far, WikiLeaks have concentrated their efforts on U.S. foreign policy, from wars to diplomacy. Though little concrete action appears to have been taken in response to the leaks, their next target may spark a different reaction.
Bank of America shares fell 3 percent on Tuesday after Julian Assange hinted that he had as much as 5 GB worth of their documents revealing some shady behavior.
"We know they've made horrific acquisitions... taken massive write-downs... if they actually had to report that, they're probably technically insolvent," financial blogger Barry Ritholtz told cable news.
But we already know there's been plenty of mismanagement and even fraud on Wall Street, so what could Assange have on the Bank that we don't already know? Given their shameless theft of US assets, what could possibly embarrass them?
Maybe, however, it's not about what happens after, but what happens before WikiLeaks leaks. Ritholtz noted that maybe this is just about "shaking the tree--disturbing the status quo." And Assange has written plenty himself on the subject.
In one essay, Assange notes: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie."
So perhaps when we look for action to be taken as a result of the WikiLeaks, we're looking for the wrong thing. Instead, maybe what we're looking at is a long-term attempt to provoke a response that reveals the dysfunction within our most powerful institutions and possibly derails it by provoking an over-reaction.
Think lunch-counter sit-ins, updated. If Assange's cyber invasion is to Bankster Street what the civil rights marchers were to segregation, what are Wall Street's water cannons? And will they end up, by their reaction, shooting themselves in the foot?
I can hardly wait to find out.