In sport "amateur" used to designate a superior status.
The captain of the England cricket team was for many years required to be an amateur. Similarly the Olympic movement excluded professional athletes - until the dodgy practices of America and the Eastern block rendered this untenable.
The reality is that politicians of both parties have "gone native" with the intelligence establishment.
Given Obama's rhetoric as a candidate it is really disappointing (and slightly surprising) that he went native so quickly. Generally one would have expected less from a republican.
Ah - I see your problem - you are confusing the status of a journalist as a profession, with the respect that is afforded to its members, with the legal protections that are afforded to journalism.
Let me take your football analogy.
Anyone can play football - and when they do they are called a footballer and are protected by the laws of the game.
On those occasions when professional teams play against amateurs (as in the FA cup - I'm British so I'm talking proper football here) you do not see the professionals having a different set of rules from the amateurs.
Of course that does not mean that everyone who ever plays football is a professional - let alone a "star" - but it does make them - during the time when they are actually playing - a "footballer".
So long as the government is defining who is a journalist then journalists are effectively part of the government. It follows that the privileges will be ineffective in allowing the press to act as a watchdog.
Copyright is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
FTFY
2. That his understanding and interpretation of the Constitution was superior to that of the Legislative branch and much, if not most, of Congress;
3. That his understanding and interpretation of the Constitution was superior to that of the Executive branch which is headed by a Constitutional lawyer;
4. That his understanding and interpretation of the Constitution was superior to that of the Judicial branch;
The constitution is not supposed to be rocket science that only a few cognoscenti can understand and interpret correctly. It is for the people - and so every adult of sound mind should be on an equal footing in their understanding of it.
Actual have money problem does probably make a person a higher risk as they are more likely to take money for payment
Which could be better addressed by making financial advice services available to employees.
and if they are disenfranchised with politicly it makes then less likely to care about there commitment to keep stuff that should stay secret, secret.
I presume you meant "disenchanted".
Being disenchanted probably means you think more about politics than the uncritical person - and therefore you probably have a better idea about what really needs to be secret and what doesn't
I don't think society wants whistleblowing to be a normal and expected behavior. It's a big middle finger to the whole society really, it's telling everyone in it "hey, you can't manage your society well enough that the rules you've established ensure just outcomes, so I am going to break all those rules in order to achieve an end you can't."
I don't think society wants whistleblowing to be a normal and expected behaviour because I don't think it wants whistleblowing to be necessary.
But I think the average person sees these claims (especially in total) as being really extraordinary, and as such requiring extraordinary evidence to back them up. Perhaps that evidence exists, and we may even find out that this is the case. But I think given the breadth of the claims we need to be pretty tolerant of a lot of skepticism toward them.
The overblown reaction of those in power towards Snowden IS a piece of extraordinary evidence against them. You don't get this kind of reaction from the innocent.
Also recent polls have suggestsed that the average person is far more in tune with the "techdirt reaction" to all of this than to the government's line.
Richard, come on, are you REALLY arguing that Genesis paints men and women in an equal light?
Well Genesis 1 does - and if you look at Genesis 2 - which seems to be a completely separate story - you will see that whereas Eve was made from a rib Adam was made from dirt - which seems to put Eve above Adam.
You can't gloss over the fact that Adam was first (in the Bible story, I mean, since that's obviously all it is) and that Eve led him astray.
Actually the first creation of men and women in Genesis 1:26-27 has them clearly created on an equal footing:
Genesis 1
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The Adam and Eve story comes later.
Or that people in power should not be allowed to express their opinion ?
If they are "in power" then by definition they will inevitably be able to express their opinions.
Free speech is about people who are NOT in power being able to express their opinion without fear.
I definitely don't defend middlemen like Kim Dotcom who does NOTHING except grift off the value of stolen content
Actually Dotcom DID provide something - he provided infrastructure - like telcos and ISPs do and unlike many more traditional MAFIAA middlemen.
Oddly though I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said.
Sweet merciful crap guys, it's getting hard to keep my pirate dogma straight. Please work this out:
Piracy doesn't affect sales?
Maybe
or even
Piracy increases sales?
But - even if it does neither of those two:
Or piracy redistributes wealth?!
So actually we have an argument with multiple layers of defence
From the 1960's (Harold Wilson was then British Prime Minister)
Britsh Politician: "So you see, in Britain we have a thing called freedom of speech. Anyone can stand in Trafalgar Square and shout "Harols Wilson is a fool" and nothing will happen to him.
Russian Politician: And so in Russia. Anyone can stand in Red Square and shout "Harold Wilson is a fool - and nothing will happen to him.
Spanish inquisition - total death toll ~5000 over several centuries.
Hitler+Stalin 26 million in around 20 years.
Italian prosecutors do this all the time - for many years Frank Williams and a number of other people in his F1 team were unable to travel to Italy as a result of an accident that they held him (unreasonably) responsible for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ayrton_Senna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The solution is to believe what the Russian media says about the US and what the US media says about Russia - simple really...