The incontinence of Wikileaks is becoming legendary, so much so that even the world’s most eminent consultant urologist would have difficulty prescribing a cure for the outpourings.
It’s obvious that several individuals and nations, not least King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, or the Obama administration in the USA, have found this leakage a wholly distressing problem, one likely to have a profound impact on quality of life for some time, at least if you believe what the media has to say. However; is the so-called involuntary flow simply a minor urinary tract infection or, could it be something more sinister and solid?
The fallout from Wikileaks to my mind, despite the ranting of MadDinnerjacket who has proclaimed it a CIA plot, has been little more than amusing. The bloggers, who actually have their finger on the pulse, have observed and made comment…
Dr Matthew Ashton’s Politics Blog: Yesterday saw yet more revelations from Wikileaks as they released another cache of classified US documents. There are quite a few bombshells in them, that heads of state and citizens alike will be reading with interest. They range from the serious, such as Saudi Arabia encouraging the US to bomb Iran, to the ridiculous; apparently the Obama administration doesn’t have a very high opinion of David Cameron… (Read More)
The political rhetoric, spun PR crap and associated media frienzy shite of the whole situation is the bit that interests me, it’ also the bit noted and commented on by ACO…
Allcoppedout: As a public, we should really be failing ourselves as largely uneducated, if we think any media frenzy on Wikileaks is any more than a distraction from the dirty reality of politics and the lack of any really free comment. All of what Wikileaks is hyping-up will turn out to have been discussed and modelled in serious books and journals. We just don’t read. (Read more)
Are we all so immature, shallow and thick, that we’re happy to continually consume the hyped up baby fodder excrement liquidised by journalists? If we lived in a society where diplomats, politicians and business leaders actually had the confidence to say things in public, that they actually believe, a website like Wikileaks would be out of business!
Yes (sometimes) diplomacy actually has its place however, as a society we have probably gone far too far. Wouldn’t it be better if we could all have confidence and belief in our leaders? Instead of having to stomach all the shit which unfortunately so easily and naturally flows from their mouths.
Related Articles
- Wikileaks: What if all diplomacy were entirely open? (bbc.co.uk)
- Saudi Arabia shrugs off WikiLeaks memos (foxnews.com)
- Wikileaks cables leak criticised (bbc.co.uk)
- Wikileaks: cables will embarrass, but won’t cause diplomatic meltdown (telegraph.co.uk)
Dave's Bankside Babble 
Am writing a thesis on Public Trust in WikiLeaks, the Media and the Government and need to know what your opinions are. The online survey is multiple choice and will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Please follow the link: http://www.kwiksurveys.com/?s=ILLLML_9669e09d. Would be great if you would encourage others to do the survey also.
LikeLike
I think leadership itself is the problem Grumpy, along with why we so often need it, but have leaders who could never deliver it. Mostly, leadership is that pain in the neck of fanny-farters who have been told to be proactive and have you doing loads of stuff doomed to fail, which stop you doing the real job. It’s about this time when they start to over-pay themselves and disappear behind the mahogany curtain, playing golf and sitting in remuneration committees.
There are serious arguments against leadership, from genetics, animal behaviour and notions of social contract. Socrates had to invent justice as a virtue, so we could understand why it was in the interests of the rich to care about justice rather than just buy results in court. Virtue lost! It may not be ‘better leaders’ that we need, but the embodiment of leadership systems in such a way that we have no permanent leaders.
LikeLike