State Department Refused to Protect Their People

This paragraph from a recent Time Magazine article on WikiLeaks and the State Department really stands out to me.

Assange said that all the documents were redacted "carefully." "They are all reviewed, and they're all redacted either by us or by the newspapers concerned," he said. He added that WikiLeaks "formally asked the State Department for assistance with that. That request was formally rejected."

Look, the biggest criticism we've seen against WikiLeaks is that they're 'putting people in danger.' That the State Department would refuse an offer to help redact information they view as critically important to national security, or the safety of their own intelligence sources, either means they don't care about that safety, or they care more about getting WikiLeaks taken down than they do the safety of their own people. Either way, the criticism that WikiLeaks is 'putting people in danger' is no longer credible given this information -- particularly given the fact that WikiLeaks still went out of their way to carefully redact this information despite the lack of participation of the State Department.

President Obama eloquently spoke about the need for his government to keep open communications with enemy nations while campaigning. The government would be much better off if Obama's administration opened communications up with WikiLeaks and tried to work with them to redact what they truly think needs to be redacted, rather than attack this nation's very first amendment -- the freedom of speech.

Time Magazine Needs to Apologize!

This article, purportedly about the tragic hate-crime killing of Lawrence King in California, is instead an attack on those who are pushing for gay rights and protections.

Though the organization paints a still overall grim picture for young gays, fully 78% of gay and transgender kids say they feel safe at school, according to a 2005 GLSEN report. According to another GLSEN survey released in 2006, only 18% of gay and transgender students said they had been assaulted in 2005 because of their sexual orientation.

"Only" 1 in 5 glbt students are being assaulted in school, merely for being gay, lesbian or transgender. That's not a problem at all. Clearly, they must deserve it or something.

I'm so angry right now, I don't even know what to do with myself. Gay teens are being murdered merely for being gay and Time magazine wants to defend inaction. Time magazine should be ashamed of itself.

Update:

Time Magazine obviously doesn't think we have a systemic problem regarding hate-crime violence directed toward GLBT people. Well, tell that to Michael Sandy, who was trying to run from his attackers when he was ran over with a car because he was gay. He died. Sean Kennedy just wanted to have a fun night out with his friends, but his attacker didn't like the fact that he was gay - so he punched Kennedy, who's head hit the pavement and separated his brain stem from his brain, killing him. Then there's Ryan Skipper, who was stabbed 20 times and thrown at the side of the road, while his killers stole his bloody car and drove around screaming about how they had killed the "faggot."

Not enough? 3 year old Ronnie Paris was killed by his father, all because his father was trying to "make Ronnie Antonio tough and to teach him to fight, because he did not want Ronnie to grow up to be gay." I'm not done - Phillip Walsted was struck almost twenty times in the head with a baseball bat, Brandon Teena was beaten, raped, stabbed and then finally shot in the head because he was transgender. But don't worry, only 18% of gay, lesbian and transgender students are targeted at school. That's not a problem at all.