WikilLeaks has been getting a lot of press as of late for the classified files of the U.S. government it has published on the internet. The site is publishing nearly a quarter million classified U.S. diplomatic cables. There has been a lot of talk in the past few years about having a transparent government. Is this really what the country was after? If it is, the full repercussions of this transparency have not been thought out.

The U.S. state department was sent out in a scramble this week to prepare the international community for leaked documents.

“The release of hundreds of thousands of State Department cables is expected this weekend, although WikiLeaks has not been specific about the timing. The cables are thought to include private, candid assessments of foreign leaders and governments and could erode trust in the U.S. as a diplomatic partner.” more

Is recording all the private calls between government leaders and their personal assessments of people really what we mean by transparent government? Can you image trying to run a government dealing with countries like Iran, North Korea, China and others where a third party tells those other leaders what your actually thinking behind close doors? You are basically left trying to win a chess match while having to tell your opponent why you are making each move. I am sure it is hard enough to build a rapport with some of these leaders, and it has to be impossible when someone is telling that person, behind your back, the concerns you have about trusting them. How do you continue to build relationships with leaders who now know you have called them "risk averse and rarely creative" or "feckless" and "vain." This leaders now now any conversation they have with the U.S. maybe read to the world. How likely do you think these leaders are to be honest with us now?

WikiLeaks says it is disclosing the information because the White House is trying to cover up "human rights abuse and other criminal behavior." It must take a lot of effort to find the connection between human rights violations and telling the world what has been said in private talks between the U.S. and the Saudi King about Iran.

The Secretary of State has spent her time this past week reaching out to our friends, and those we are trying to befriend, in order to soften the blow of what has been said in these private conversations. How is the U.S. expected to build relationships this way? The Italian PM has been scrambling this past week to explain the comments made about him in these documents.

The job of getting other countries to trust us just got A LOT harder.

If Roosevelt during World War II had to deal with this type of transparency  I think the outcome of WWII may have been different. How do you maintain fragile alliances and public support tif the press tells the world of every mistake or mishap.

I am all for government transparency but there are certain areas of the government where this applies to more then others. Certain things in the government need to be filtered so we can build relationships and handle explosive situation as gently as possible.

The most interesting part of this mess is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks is an Australian. A person from outside the U.S. has created a website to expose all the secrets of the U.S. and destroy its standing in the world.

Issues are rarely as simple as most people make them out to be. This is especially true in politics. I watched a couple videos which called this out to me once again. They are pretty short but hopefully will help people understand why they need to get into the details more when they hear arguments. Anyone that offers a simple story is probably not giving you the facts. The last video one dissects a political ad running in the state of Washington right now. It think it is important for everyone though because I am sure everyone has plenty of ads running in their state now, and like this one I am sure they all use distortion of facts and half truths to paint a picture.

Hopefully this does not discourage anyone but encourages you to find the principles you stand behind in the details of the argument, so you can stand behind the person whom really does hold those principles.

Poisoned words are words that are over used and often void of vital context that would empower them with meaning. Poisoned words are all around us being used in the media, in politics, and when used they limit dialog, alienate listeners, and inhibit intellectually honest thoughts and expression which could be meaningful if participants actually considered more deeply what is being communicated.

A few examples of these words are: Tolerance, Diversity, and Racist. There are more of these words but these examples will be enough to illustrate the point. The word Racist is tossed around commonly in modern political dialog. It is used so often in so many different contexts that the real meaning of the word has been diluted and obscured. We hear the term used in cases where people are trying to exterminate others based on race, clearly racism! But we also hear the term tossed about when political opponents have mild differences of opinion with one another. Is that racism too? There seems to be a large disparity between the two scenarios but if they are both racism then how do we make a distinction. Is one an extreme case of racism and the other a mild case of racism? If so, where does the distinction change between the mild form and the extreme form? No one would know the answer to that. The word racism and the accusation of racist was a powerful inditement and packed with serious meaning. The term racist has been used frequently in describing the Tea Party movement in America. According to a recent poll 41% of Americans have “Favorable Views” of the Tea Party and 70% of Republicans have favorable views of the Tea Party. Does that mean 41% of Americas are racist or at a minimum have “Favorable Views” of racism? Thinking that is absurd (although I am sure some people do.) Besides, what race are we talking about? It’s often assumed we are talking about Blacks, but it is also commonly used in reference to Hispanics. When we use the term are we always clear about what race we are referring to? Can Whites be victims of racism?

Let’s look at Tolerance. It seems today that we all like to bow down and worship at the alter of Tolerance because it seems like a nice thing to do. But wait, who has to do the bowing down, and who gets to be the alter? Do Democrats have to tolerate Republican ideas about lower taxes, or do Republicans have to tolerate Democrats ideas of more government programs? Do Liberals have to tolerate SUVs, or do Conservatives have to tolerate environmentalists laws to stop global warming? Do Socialists have to tolerate Libertarians desires for Limited Government, or do Libertarians have to tolerate Socialists views of a large Nanny State? Do religious people have to tolerate the redefinition of marriage or do homosexuals have to tolerate the centuries long tradition of male-female marriage? And where is the fine line between tolerance and acceptance? Because I tolerate it does that mean I have to be accepting of it as well? What if acceptance violates my values, or my religious views? Does the state have the power to force acceptance in those cases too, and if they do, how do they determine who has to accept whom? Does the majority get to decide, or is that mob rule? Are we a Republic that believes in the Democratic process? It is inescapable that when the demand for tolerance is invoked the one making the demand is being intolerant.

Our last example is Diversity. Many like to praise the virtues of Diversity without any limits, or qualifiers. Diversity means difference – it could be a difference in opinion, values, morals, height, weight, hair color, language, sexual orientation, or a myriad of others. Common sense would suggest that having variety of input and choices can lead to better outcomes. But that’s only if eventually a consensus can be reached, and consensus is not diversity. Are all these differences good all the time in any circumstance? Common sense suggests not. What about harmony? The opposite of diversity. Is there virtue in that as well? Surely there is. Diversity is a means to an end, and not all ends. Diversity for diversity’s sake is meaningless. Take 20 people and put 10 of them in room A and the other 10 in room B. In room A, everyone has the same job, same age, same race, same experiences, same background, etc. In room B, everyone has different jobs, a variety of experiences, difference races, etc. Give each room a set of problems to solve. Common sense suggests that room B would have greater creativity and a richer set of experiences from which to draw solutions. Room A sill might solve the problems (and maybe faster) but only if the challenges are within their realm of narrow experiences. At this point we might place our money on room B to solve the problems better because their diversity could give them an advantage over a wide array of problems. However, let's add a little more diversity to room B – lets say everyone in room B speaks a different language. More diversity is a good thing right? Not true. Now room B has differences so large that they cannot be bridged (at least not with a larger skillset of bilingual people) and the ability for the group to solve problems degrades. Therefore, all diversity is not equal, and in some situations it can turn from virtue to hindrance.

The key is to slow down and think more clearly about these words, use them when they retain their power and their context and implications are clear. Using them carelessly and with flippant frequency rapes them of meaning and as a result wisdom is abducted by foolishness.

I am not really a Glenn Beck fan. While I do sympathize with a lot of general feelings around what is going on in the country I do think he is a bit over dramatic about some of it. But hey, that is probably why he is a big star making lots of money and I am not. I am a firm believer though that the company you keep says a lot about you. I recently read this article in the WSJ which impressed me about the recent rally Glenn Beck helped organize in Washington.

The group has been criticized for holding the rally at the site of Martin Luther King's great speech. How are people offended at this? The statement positions the argument as if no one else has ever held a rally in the same spot after Martin Luther King’s great speech. There have been numerous rallies held in this same spot since then. Why is this one drawing criticism? Is it simply because these people don’t agree with the message? A lot of people did not agree with Martin Luther King Jr.’s message at the time either. Maybe it is the combination of the spot and being held on the same day in history. I still don’t see how it is offensive.  Maybe you find it offensive simply because you disagree with the message. I don’t think the message in anyway went against Martin Luther King Jr.’s great message. One article quoted Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners magazine, as saying “We refuse to let Mr. Beck’s rally cast a dark shadow over the civil rights movement.” I don’t really understand this statement. Part of the rally even acknowledged Martin Luther King Jr., his message, and his great influence on the nation. How does honoring him and our military men and women cast a shadow over the civil rights movement? Nothing said went against the civil rights movement.

James Freeman said it well in his article.

“The day was largely devoted to expressions of gratitude for the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers, for great men of American history like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and for God.”

Maybe you feel this is just lip service and does not match the rest of the message. I don’t see the hate and racism others say is there. Maybe I am not really listening, or maybe they are not really listening. Maybe we are just not understanding where the other is coming from.

James Freeman goes on to described the attitude of the group:

“One would not be able to find a more polite crowd at a political convention, certainly not at a professional sporting event, probably not even at an opera. In fact, judging by the behavior of the attendees following the event, you'd have a tough time finding churches in which people display more patience as others make their way to the exits.”

I am mystified at how a group described like this and who spent most their time talking about and honoring military personnel and people who have scarified for all of us, can be so easily dismissed and insulted . People have insulted this group with harsh words like:

“It's too bad God hasn't struck Glenn mute as well as blind.”

“They really are the worst of the worst.”

“These are the silly illogical whites, (like there is any other type really!)”

Really? The worst of the worst? I hope that statement is simply inanity and not reflective of where we are at in our reasoning abilities. These messages about the people at this rally are in complete contrast to each other. It is really concerning that far too often groups with different opinions are dismissed quickly with some type of inflammatory degrading remark. The issue will not be resolved without understanding and understanding will not be achieved without listening. There are plenty of sane, logical, calm people on both sides. Lets start talking like it and stop dismissing the other group with insults and profanity.