Pangloss

The fact that prominent politicians demanded Assange's execution, abduction or assassination is alarming by itself.

Which politicians do you mean? I was under the impression that this was in the domain of screaming pundits rather than elected officials. What have I missed?

I saw a quote from Newt Gingrich on Jon Stewart last night, but he wasn't advocating execution, abduction or assassination. He seemed to be advocating arrest and prosecution as an "enemy combatant". Which is in my opinion a highly dubious idea, but I don't think it helps to conflate that idea with murder. But maybe there are some politicians that have crossed the line here that I just haven't heard about.

Then there are the claims that Wikileaks is a "terrorist organisation" or a "transnational threat" that needs to be hunted down and stopped.

 

In a country like ours, we should not be advocating that the government freely break its own laws to hunt down someone who possibly didn't even break the law at all. If only we had some sort of mechanism to have a group of people decide if the charges against a person are valid, and an appropriate punishment then be handed out to the perpetrator...

I agree.

To the extent that what WL is doing bothers me (overreaching the "Pentagon Papers" flag Assange drapes himself in), I think what the US government is doing in response is even more disturbing. I think of this less as the cyberwar of 2010 as much as I think it's an act in the reincarnation of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, with terrorism being the item used to cause fear, and an excuse by the government to do unconstitutional things "for our own good," and the attempt to stamp out WL is one part of the play.

I think it's a point very much worth considering. I'm sure we'd all agree that it needs to be shown that the US was behind all that, but assuming it's true I think we have to take a serious look at that and decide whether we want the government participating in that sort of reaction to this kind of event.

I'm actually fine with having cyber war capabilities at the government level. It's a simple matter of realpolitik -- other countries are going to have them, so if we don't have them then we're vulnerable. I think we should pursue it in joint fashion with our allies and with a certain degree of transparency and clear rules, but I think we should pursue it.

But this is more like a reaction to "just looking bad". Some aspects of this I could see. Cyber-attacking an organization to stop the release of data that immediately endangers lives -- I would support that. Cyber-attacking an organization to stop the release of a document showing the president having a tryst with Lady Gaga, not so much.

The problem is there's a lot of gray area in between.

I still bet it counts as a common assumption among Americans that the Republicans are more inclined to favor the rich while the Democrats are more inclined to favor increased federal and state spending to achieve social justice.

Yup. And they knew that when they went to the polls last month. Isn't that interesting? It means your ideological preferences may be recognized to some extent, but that most people weight it against other ideological preferences and/or more immediate problems.

The great unwashed. Hand 'em a bar of soap and they trade it for milk. Go figure.

The only way this class interest voting is broken up is by the Republicans supplementing their appeal by posing as the party of religion to attract the cornpone crowd south of the Mason-Dixon line and as the party of international aggression to please frustrated, testosterone-driven old males shouting at television news pictures of Iran or other countries defying U.S. interests. The Republicans also used to make a covert appeal to racism until that became too unfashionable.

So what you're trying to say is that you don't think much of Republicans. (grin) Hey, more power to you. Everyone has their view.

For what it's worth, my feeling is that you lost me at the word "only". It seems to me like you're just doing exactly the same thing that you accuse your ideological enemies of doing -- demonizing the other side, never considering voting for anything other than your own side (because no matter how bad they may be, at least they're not the enemy), and seeing everything as a war.

I don't think that works, I think it just makes things worse. But hey, maybe it's just me.

The real problem in the economy is not excessive spending, as so many assume, but simply insufficient taxes to pay for the starkly minimalist expenditures of the U.S. federal government.

It's not an assumption. And what you're calling "starkly minimalist" is a 2010 expenditures of $3.552 trillion, the majority of which is mandatory social spending.

When you consider that the Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001 and through all this time they have not only failed to stimulate the economy but have even allowed the worst recession since the Great Depression to develop, it seems bizarre that some people claim we need more of the same to get us out of the recession.

Isn't it Democrats who are arguing that the President's stimulus package stopped things from being worse? Why do Democrats get to use that reasoning but not Republicans?

I think there's a pretty good argument being made that businesses are hesitant to expand and invest right now because of uncertainty over tax policy. Actually I think investment would increase immediately even if they had gone with the bash-the-250k crowd as planned, just because at least then everybody would have known what was going on. But the early argument that was so commonly made by the left that small business would not be effected just did not seem to jive with the concerns. Too many businesses claimed that they would be affected, and since most Americans are employed by small business, it matters when you raise the taxes paid by those small businesses.

And by the way, that refutes your insinuation that intelligent people vote Democrat and stupid people vote Republican. Democrats and ideologically-minded liberals have gotten quite a wake-up call here about how small business operates.

Anyway, there's a whole host of "we've already tried that" items on the liberal side of the equation too, Marat. Nobody has any definitive answers. That's why there are not one but two equally leading schools of economic thought, and they are in direct contradiction of each other.

People? Which people? Polls tell a different story. My link.

 

The people (whoever they are) apparently are divided with a skew towards letting the tax cuts expire for the highest earners.

Fair enough, it's more a split, but I don't think we can blame this entirely on Republican grandstanding, because we weren't given a lot of options by Democrats, either. The 250k mark dipped into small business jobs, and Dems felt that higher marks didn't do enough for the deficit. If Chuck Schumer's suggestion of $1-mil+ had been allowed time to percolate and draw support it might have been useful.

All of this just underscores the point that the problem is spending, not taxing. But I would have happily supported a tax increase that didn't adversely impact the economy, as long as we take a serious look at spending. I'd accept the proposal of the Obama administration's deficit panel and implement the entire package immediately -- and MOST of that deficit reduction comes from tax increases. They just aren't the kind of tax increases that hurt the economy.

It's been common wisdom since about the time of the split in the Republican Party between the Taft conservatives and the Teddy Roosevelt progressives that the Republicans have no other political interest than governing the country to benefit the richest 5% of the population, no matter how much harm has to be done to the national interest or to the other 95% of the population to accomplish this.

No it's not.

But I would have thought that the recent tax cuts for millionaires issue would have forced the Republicans to come out into the open and get blamed forever for being what they are: the political agent of rich people rather than a legitimate party in a democracy. But no, it seems as if the American electorate has been schooled so well and so long to be brainless that a majority of people who will never be rich and who themselves need federally funded social programs to prosper will still always support the upper 5% of the population.

Does it help when you call them "brainless" and "schooled"? I mean, does it change their minds?

Jeremy Clarkson!

The Daily Show free to view in the States as well, by the way. Part of what they call "basic cable", and also available the next day on the Web.

If we had a carefully researched and democratically agreed upon measure of what work was really worth in terms of its difficulty, unpleasantness, and true value to society, then there would be a better argument for saying that people 'who contribute more' so get to keep their money.

Absolutely! And I think we have that debate every day in America, and the people inevitably come down on the side of a mixed socio-economic strategy that includes a robust capitalistic motivation combined with social safety nets.

Currently that means that people wanted all the tax cuts preserved. They wanted the <200k cuts preserved for their own wallets, and they wanted to the >200k cuts preserved for their jobs. They might have gone along with Chuck Schumer's suggestion of a tax increase on those making a million per year or more, had Republicans gone along. But not because they believe that it's a good idea to redistribute income.

But the problem is that an investor can make more money in a one-minute telephone call than a coal miner can make in his entire life, and Johnny Cash made a fortune by singing off-key while many talented graduates of the Julliard Opera program can never earn a living, so people don't generally 'deserve' their money by any rigorous criteria of desert.

That's not a "problem", it's a "motivation". The American people don't care that some people get ahead -- even WAY ahead. What they care about is whether their own opportunities will be there when they come knocking at the door.

I think you're right about the boredom/4chan angle, but I think there's a certain aspect of this that has interesting depth to it. This frequency and focus of these DDoS attacks, and the hint of government clandestine activity lurking below the surface (attacks on Wikileaks itself), has been like something out of a Neal Stephenson novel.

I'm not sure I approve of his not receiving bail. He's not exactly Osama bin Laden, and while it could be argued that he is a flight risk, as some were pointing out earlier it could be seen another way (hiding from the media, etc). And it doesn't seem to me that the current evidence support not being allowed parole. That seems like more a case of "let's hold on to him in case the Americans want him".

I agree that his not releasing the password on the unredacted documents suggests that he wasn't talking about the rape case when he said "if something happens". He could still do that, I suppose, but perhaps he was only referring to (for example) charges of espionage, treason, etc, related to the leaks.

Or they'll wonder why people who work hard pander to people who don't. I mean, as long as we're generalizing.

Incidentally, the fact that two women have complained about him isn't legally important either. Unless they were both present at the same time and corroborate one another's stories.

Being accused by one party is not evidence of guilt of a crime against a second party.

Yes it is. More than one report lends credibility to each reported case. It's compelling, probative and relevant. It's valid circumstantial evidence. I wouldn't convict on that alone, personally, but I'm not a lawyer or prosecutor or judge, or even a citizen of Sweden, but I don't think you are either, so we'll have to wait and see what's valid in their court system.

If anything this publicity means that Asange cannot expect a fair trial- the jury who try him for the alleged actions against miss A will have heard in the press that he was accused of broadly similar actions against miss B.

This will prejudice them (legally) against him.

His lawyer can reasonably demand that he is tried in the first case by a jury who are not aware of the allegations of the second case.

He certainly can. But such arguments lead to changes of venue, not dismissals. Even famous cases have to be adjudicated.

Yes they can.

And so can Julian Assange continue to expound the virtues of good government even if he's convicted on a rape charge.

The law varies between states, in most US states Assange's alleged actions were legal. Different sovereign countries having differences in their legal systems, how can this be a surprise?

The US also requires extradition between its internal states, so why is it a surprise that the sovereign countries that make up the EU require extradition?

I suppose you're right there. My mistake.

No-one here is doing that.

I disagree, and that's an opinion either way, so you can't really speak for everyone.

But, i'm sorry, trying to label what he's doing as 'ethical' and then say that he has to act ethically in every single way or he's somehow 'wrong' is far too broad. I mean, by that stance rapists can't object to child molestation, paedophiles can't object to genocide, adulterors can't object to gay marriage for any reason, and (assuming he's guilty) rapists can't object to government corruption.

And values-based politicians can't object to anything on moral grounds if they're found to be immoral themselves. Just the way politics goes sometimes. It's not just conservatives, of course -- John Edwards cheating on his cancer-striken wife leaps to mind (she passed away today).

"Society" has no needs. It is an abstract concept used to differentiate between self-interest and interest in helping others. You would be more correct to say that people are more often motivated by immediate needs then long-term planning.

This is a different subject from the question that I was answering, lemur.

You never travel?

I've visited almost a dozen other countries and about a third of the American states. We're not discussing travel and mobility, we're discussing nomadism via walking. I think you're on to something, but the motivations are a little different. It's a valid question as to whether existing travel motivations might translate to nomadism if the motivation to do so were sufficient. It might or it might not, but it's certainly worth exploring the possibility.

The president and Republicans came to terms on a deal this afternoon. All tax cuts will be extended, even those for the wealthiest earners.

Some details can be found here:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-07/obama-agrees-to-two-year-tax-cut-extension-lower-payroll-taxes.html

I think this is an excellent step forward. The plan isn't perfect, but I think what's important here is that common ground was found on a number of issues and a path forward was found. It was either this or complete stagnation, and apparently nobody wanted that. That's encouraging.

I know many on the left will be disappointed, and indeed the impact on the bottom line is significant, which affects all Americans. It's even more important to cut entitlement spending now. But suddenly I find myself looking very much forward to the next couple of years, and potentially even voting for Obama again.

Yeah, the cops have a very high rate of criminality so we should do more to discourage that, and I hear athletes are physically fit and can run fast, so when we jail them we might need a few extra precautions so they don't escape.

Easily solved.

Well I agree that more research would be needed to really see the exact impact here. If this were a peer-reviewed journal we'd be casting a pretty jaundiced eye at the study's limitations and suggestions for future research.

(Reminds me of a paper I read the other day on whether outsourcing adds value to corporations. The authors, three scholars from a prominent business school writing for a major journal, stated that they had shown that outsourcing adds value. Their evidence? A simple analysis of immediate impact on a company's stock value when an announcement about outsourcing is made. Not even a perfunctory nod at the obvious question of long-term impact. Talk about limitations!)

No, it's up to a British Extradition Panel. And they've no business extraditing someone if there's insufficient evidence, by the requesting country's own standards, to expect a conviction.

Yes, it's up to whatever authorities there are, who will presumably take a look at the evidence, as opposed to reading an article online, fawning over the importance of "transparency", and deciding that he simply MUST be innocent.

BTW, it's fascinating to me that "extradition" is still required within the so-called "European Union". Europe can't even agree on a single definition of rape, but has no problem giving the US a hard time for not submitting to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

How does that count as threatening bodily harm?

Non-redacted names of Iraqi informants may result in their death.

this isn't about being equally unfair to JA just to 'make it even', is it?

What that particular point is about is that hypocrisy is either a valid issue in political discussion, or it is not.

His stance is anti-government/corporation-corruption, and openness as a means towards forcing that end, whether said governments/corporations agree or not.

Well that's your opinion and more power to you. If you work it a little more you might find an even narrower definition that lets you avoid any comparisons at all.

Rape isn't corruption.

Nope. But it sure is unethical.

No.

My modification was just to reduce the effects of pundits being poorly known.

Right, but it does that at the cost of measuring exposure, which is really the point of the survey. By normalizing those variables we see that his positives-to-negatives ratio is more impressive than we see with other pundits, which is really valuable to know (IMO). But that doesn't mean that he has greater overall impact. For that we have to factor in exposure.

Doesn't what they think the impact is translate pretty well into what the impact really is?

Oh, good point. Just like what random people think are the answers to physics problems correlate well to what the actual answers are, or how people's estimate of how likely people are to die a certain way correlates to the actual percentages (eg "What is likelier to kill someone, a peanut or a terrorist?"). Sure, there's a correlation, but is asking random people really the best way to get reliable answers?

The poll is about the impact of pundits on politics. Politics in a democracy is all about the manipulation of public opinion. Comparing that with accurate answers in physics is incorrect -- there are no objective absolutes in public policy discourse. There are only operationalized social-science variables based generally on polling data. Take it or leave it.

But either way, please leave the ridicule at the door. I didn't attack you, and I don't deserve a sarcastic response.

no it isn't. If there's zero likelyhood of a conviction, then there's not reasonable grounds for a case.

That's not up to you, it's up to Swedish prosecutors. If the two ladies are in collusion, fine, but we can't make that determination via news reporting and public opinion. It has to be made via a legal process.

where did JA do this please?

In threatening to release unredacted documents if "something happens" to him.

JA hasn't adopted an anti-rape stance. So, even if he's guilty, it'd be a different situation.

Sorry, no dice. Conservative politicians who cheat on their wives get hammered as hypocrits over gay marriage, for example. It's a broad brush, not a fine-toothed comb. Assange's entire motivation and purpose is ethical behavior, and he's all over the map about what constitutes unethical behavior, ranging from governments to corporations and I believe even individuals.

Interesting analysis. I like the ideas there for determining an overall score. I'm not sure how well that accounts for the problem of observer bias by voters, but it does seem to reduce that impact (was that part of the point?).

Regarding this:

Well, polls don't show they have it, they show people in the poll demographic think they have it.

Doesn't what they think the impact is translate pretty well into what the impact really is?

Maybe. The cost motivation is probably more realistic than the environmental motivation.

Why?

Well, of those two motivations that you raised, I would say that presently more people are motivated by their more immediate needs than the needs of overall society. Wouldn't you agree?

Personally I don't see any appeal from "nomadism", either walking or driving, except in the most limited, temporary sense (the wife and I are big fans of the national park system). But I could see how something like that might have mass appeal.

Interesting. Did they explain how they got the jobs?

Apparently they're posted on Web sites related to recreational camping. Isn't that an odd hook? Makes sense, I guess.

Here's a link to the video story (runs about 2 min + ad):

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/finding-jobs-road-families-seasonal-work-travel-road-rv-travel-amazon-12280510

Maybe. The cost motivation is probably more realistic than the environmental motivation.

I saw a story the other day about people traveling around the country following temporary employment. They live in recreational vehicles, working at a Wal-Mart here, an Amazon fulfillment center there, and so on. I guess there's some kind of motivation there, however unrealistic it may be in the short term.

Interesting points.

Interesting point. You could make it really hard for people to find out the identity of voters, but at some level some authority would have to determine if the law was being carried out correctly.