I don't know if Julian Assange is a good guy or a bad guy. I have a pretty clear understanding that he is in charge of Wikileaks, which I used to believe was a good thing, but I am not exactly sure what role it is currently playing in world politics. Their mission statement says the web site "specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption." So, I suppose if it's all about transparency and holding people accountable then I'm for it.
Except that back in 2016, the "President" then the "Candidate" professed his love for Wikileaks. Which of course sends me automatically to the other side of the boat, looking into shark infested waters wondering if being on that particular boat is a good choice. Happily, I didn't actually jump into the shark infested waters, and when our "President" said this past week that he "knows nothing" about Wikileaks, I felt some reassurance.
But the list of things about which our "President" knows nothing is a lengthy one. Not that he would see it that way, exactly.
So now that Julian Assange has been arrested, and the world lines up to laud or condemn him. Those who insist his work as a journalist and champion of free speech will rescue us all from the treachery of the all-powerful state, and those who have been embarrassed or brought low by the revelations of his efforts and those he has inspired. And maybe a third, smaller group that see Mister Assange as a celebrity of his own making, looking to martyr himself for a price. Which is probably closest to the place I find myself currently. Hiding in plain sight inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Julian has become quite the mythical character, and when he was booted out after six years and taken to jail wearing a long gray beard, I wondered again: Gandalf or Saruman?
Meanwhile, the leaks continue. News comes to us in these odd burst pipes that contain information that needs to be reassembled and then synthesized for digestion by our weak knowledge tracts. Causing us to think about what we read and see and hear.
Which I suppose is a good thing.