The End of Wikileaks?

According to Julian Assange, places blocking donation to Wikileaks are going to drive them out of business.  Wikileak said that they will have to stop publishing temporarily to focus on revenue. It was something that is not surprising.

Both in the US and in Europe, credit cards have not allowed donations and so hosting website DataCell allowed people to directly donate through banks. The blockade, on a perfectly legal website is going to drive it out of business. With Assange's need for a lawyer for both his book deal and his possible sexual assault charge there's no money.

More so, these companies are shutting donations off to a person who can make or break them.  Meanwhile, you can use your credit card in any country to donate to every racist and hate group in the world, but a group that exposes government secrets is considered more dangerous.

It's frustrating for the government to act like this information is somehow going to destroy the lives of every American.  That some how the walls of America will be broken down by the release of papers that aren't totally, 100% secret.  The government should be scared of Assange, but shutting him down will just make others step up to take over what journalism should be about

Galid Shalit's Release and Egypt's Mistake

In the release of Gilad Shalit Egypt played a pivitol role in his release.  When he was released after his five years in captivity, he was brought through Egypt from Palestine before being delivered to Israel and the family who had not heard from him in five years.

Everything was good, Shalit's freedom was traded for the freedom of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.  Gaza may have seen Israel as one half of a fool's bargin, but it was done none the less.  It seemed like the terms of the Israeli/Palestinian conflit would be mended for a short time.  And then Egypt made a huge mistake.

Egyptian officials coerced Shalit into an interview with Egyptian journalists.   The problem with this isn't that they wanted to interview him, it's the timing and the questions.  They interviewed him minutes after Hammas released him with Hammas standing around him, armed.  They interviewed a man, who was denied medical visits from the Red Cross and whose letters and DVDs were only given to his family and to Israel for 20 female prisoners.  They asked him questions like why didn't he allow for interviews while he was in prison, ignoring the fact that his captors wouldn't allow for him to have contact with the outside world.  They then asked, since he knew what it was like to be in captivity, would he campaign for the release of Palestinians from Israeli jails.   

Ignoring the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict, ethically this is beyond wrong.  He hadn't talked to his family, seen his home or really gotten out of captivity.  For them to go and feel like part of their right of brokering the deal for his freedom is an interview with him with in minutes of being released with his captors around him is wrong.  You don't broker deals for prisoners for interviews where you ask them insensitive questions, you do it because somebody needs to be saved. I'm not 100% of the time Israeli supporter, but I understand their anger and outrage at this line of questioning.

Gadaffi's Death

I was surprised to wake up to news that Gaddafi had died.  It seemed the entirety of mainstream and indy media was treating it the same way that we treated bin Laden's death: as a skeptical idea until confirmed by other people. There seemed to be a lot of questions on if he was actually dead or if, like all the other times we had heard he was dead he was really alive.

Then there were videos of (presumably) Gaddafi's being kicked and the confirmation came through.

There were quite a few conflicting reports on what had happened.  Some said that Gaddafi had been killed by his own people, which given that they have turned his compound into a tourist bazaar while it has been confirmed that he was shot after a NATO air strike.

For the United States and our media there isn't the same about of coverage for Gaddafi as there was for bin Laden.  While

Democracy Now has been reporting from Libya and Egypt, Huffington Post is trying to keep up with the updates of the going on and the main stream is just keeping us updated with weird Gaddafi facts.

The Stranger

We talked about The Stranger and Savage love in class today.  I can't deny that I love Dan Savage.  I've met Dan and he is the best advice giver and I wish I could hang out with him every day. Dan is a voice of a generation of people who have a different idea of being gay and who have a different idea of sex.  Dan doesn't get disgusted by much, with in reason, and I think his open ear and ability to give sound and respected advice with out mincing words is respectable.  He's also a fantastic public speaker and has given a lot back to the community in the way of his It Gets Better Project.

My other favorite project of his is Spreading Santorum.  The site was created after Rick Santorum was quoted saying that homosexuality was equal to bestiality.  If you google Santorum's name (do it yourself, I will not subject my professor to it unless he wants to see it) it comes up with a less than flattering definition for the word.  Dan Savage has in fact, destroyed Santorum's credibility on the web.  He's slowly breaking down Santorum's reputation.  

More so, I love The Stranger.  The Stranger gives voices to those stories who are widely ignored.  Like Savage Love, because an explicate sex column isn't going to be shown in The Washington Post.  The stories of Occupy Seattle and the headlines in a "Call 'em Like we see 'em" style is refreshing.  Reading The Stranger is like reading a news paper your friend wrote commentary on. I guess that's why I appreciate it, not totally for the news value but because I get enjoyment from it.

I guess that's what I like best about Indy Media.  I like that stories that would otherwise get ignored get published in works like The Stranger.  I like that The Stranger actually has a porn competition, because Indy media is for those who have "out there" ideas and will go out there and do what they want to so they can get their story out.

Occupy Wall Street, Occupy College?

So I just read this piece on occupy college.  It's interesting because I haven't heard exactly what we're supposed to be protesting.  Lack of freedom of speech on college campuses?  The debt we're facing?  Bad professors?

It's pretty unclear and nobody seems to know.  According to their website it seems to be that we have a lot of debt, not a lot of opportunities and no lobbyists to fight for our rights. 

Interesting.

So the plan is to walk out of class at noon at the local time of your college.  I'm not exactly sure how walking out of our classes will start a movement. The thing is it isn't doing anything, so professors can't teach and you miss out on a day of education.  At least with Occupy Wall Street those on Wall Street have to look at those who are affected by their choices.

While Ithaca College isn't scheduled to participate in this, my class ends at noon, so I guess I'll be walking out.