To be fair, I find Ron Paul an incredibly principled and honest politician, though if I don't want him near any position of real power in this country because I know he probably will follow through on his disastrous campaign promises.
I actually think Wikileaks has an important mission. I think they should have released a lot of the information at issue here. I don't think they should have released the names of Afghani civilians cooperating with the authorities. And I think Assange's response shows him to be a narcissist. That's it.
However I find it VERY hard to feel bad for someone that makes over 1000 times what the average middle class salaried worker makes. I'm pretty sure he can retire comfortably and his kids won't even really have to work ever again either.
Also hard to feel bad for someone who is taking those bonuses after firing so many employees and cutting the salaries of the remainder.
The cop tried to convince her how to best make up her story in front of my face. I was arrested. When we went to court, I provided microcassette audio and a transcript of what had happened. Cop was fired, and they tried the woman for perjury. Still made my life a nightmare.
Wow I know you doubtless want to keep your privacy here, but I'd love to hear the details about that.
At this stage are there any objections to simply unseating every single encumbent?
I don't know how every single incumbent is voting. I'm sure there are principled, effective congresspeople; voting all of them out would seem overly drastic.
Certainly a large influx of "freshmen" to the halls of congress couldn't make matters any worse.
Had something similar to that happen with the Republican revolution in the 90's. I seem to remember it making matter much worse.
When you take an invitation to help as being "aggresive, unhelpful and [...] rude", I'd say the problem doesn't quite lie with the one that extended it.
Did you even read what happened? Basically it was this
(paraphrased):
Assange: If AI is complaining, why don't they help me redact it?
AI: We don't have a tremendous amount of resources, buy maybe we can help. Can we call you?
Assange: NO!!! I'M TOO BUSY!
Finally, if they released redacted documents. they would lose the credibility they have gained by releasing ALL the facts, no matter the consequences. Then people could (rightfully) question what they redacted and why.
And they could have answered "we only redacted the names of specific Afghani civilians, because revealing those names does not serve any greater purpose, and these people would face grave danger." You really think that shows they lack credibility? I think it adds moral credibility.
The biggest lie told right now by the "mainstream media" is that "everyone knew it", which can only mean that everyone knew that the war is a disaster and an atrocity. Now the masses know, thanks to Assange. Now they actually believe what is true.
You're missing the point. AI and a lot of the rest of us aren't attacking Assange for posting everything. We're attacking him for posting the name of Afghan civilians. And for not showing a single shred of remorse for the danger he's subjected them to, or for the death that resulted already. I think it's a good thing Wikileaks posted a lot of this stuff. The names of civilians is not one of them.
Seriously: What, exactly, is your point here? Is Assange wrong to infer that other organisations are distancing themselves because the US is bringing heat on them, quite likely through threats of reduced funding or cooperation?
Well, first of all, yes, if he thinks that he is wrong to think that Amnesty International is distancing itself because of US pressure he is astoundingly ignorant of AI and its relationship to the US.
But what I meant by narcissism is his demanding not that AI work with him to rectify the problem, but rather that he dictates what they will do, and if they don't accept unconditionally his demand they are "covering their ass." Refusing to take a phone call because he's too busy? Doing what, giving interviews? He exhibits an unfortunately common hacker stereotype; the neurotic moralizer who is convinced of his own moral superiority to everyone else.
If that's the case, then perhaps you could explain the merits of declining to support an organisation on the grounds that you don't like one of its members because you find him rude?
Oh, you've gleaned my lack of support of Wikileaks because I called Assange a narcissistic jerk? Overextrapolating a bit there, eh?
I stil have vivid memories of the first time I started Doom after 8 hours of downloading it off AOL. Unless you were a gamer at that time you have no idea what it was like to make that jump from Wolfenstein 3d to Doom.
It's easy for anyone to criticize any project. How do you propose to identify those who have useful skills and are genuinely trying to help a particular project?
I don't know, maybe by having that conference call Amnesty International was asking for?
An Amnesty official replied to say that while the group has limited resources, it wouldn't rule out the idea of helping, according to people familiar with the reply. The official suggested that Mr. Assange and the human-rights groups hold a conference call to discuss the matter.
Mr. Assange then replied: "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal," according to people familiar with the exchange.
I find lawyers charge way to much. We should allow visas for lawyers that will work for $20/hr. I wonder what the odds of getting that through congress would be?
There are huge numbers of licensed American attorneys who already will work for $20 an hour, don't need to import anyone.
And be honest about your complaints. First it was "no scholarship" and now eight years and her papers and books aren't enough
I said no significant body of scholarship. Yes, her eight years and her papers and books aren't enough. Why do you dishonestly put "now" in there like I've changed my position?
Also, how is lack of obvious politics a problem in a judge? Lack of political activism* seems like exactly what you ideally want. The fact that you see it as a problem suggests that she has politics you don't like, but aren't willing to admit because then everyone would know what you are.
"Activism"? Taking a position, ON EITHER SIDE, of compelling legal arguments of our day, should be a requirement for anyone who wants to be on the SC.
* She served under Clinton and Obama. I think you know her politics, don't you.
"Career politician/administrator" does not refer necessarily to an objective count of how many years she's done something, it has to do with her apparent chosen career path and the statements she has made (or not made) in pursuing that path. Law professors love to give their opinions. The reason one might choose to refrain from doing so is likely because she doesn't want to sabotage future political/administrative positions. Glenn Greenwald has a great criticism of her here. Tellingly, her biggest supporters (like Lawrence Lessig) have not really been able to attack the facts he brings up, but their main defense is "I know her and she'll make a great SC justice," which is a stupid justification to pick her.
Almost every bad bill that's passed these last 4-5 years has been near-100% Democrat (like the renewal of the Patriot Act) while the Republicans opposed the bill (but lacked the numbers to block it).
I never really understood why people make patently false statements that are easily disproven. The majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Patriot Act renewal. The majority of Republicans voted for it. Every single Republican in the Senate voted for its renewal. The only Senators opposing it were Democrats.
Then please let me know how such a vaunted legal scholar in such prominent positions could have spent the past ten years without taking a stand on any of the critical legal issues of the day? The past ten years have seen fundamental, important legal issues become some of the most important in our nation's history, and she manages to get by without actually letting anyone know her position.
No history of scholarship, unless you count being a fucking law professor and dean of the Harvard law school.
She has only four major articles in her career, was a law professor for a total of only 8 years, and "dean" is a political/administrative position, not a scholarly one.
But why would we count that? We don't like her politics.
I don't know her politics. Very few people seem to, which is one of the problems.
Nothing wrong with a SC nominee having no judicial or even trial advocacy experience, though you'd hope they'd at least have a significant body of legal scholarship. Kagan is very smart but she has none of these things, she's basically a career administrator/politician.
Also Barcade in Williamsburgh, Brooklyn has an astounding number of working, old-school arcade games (Joust, Gauntlet, Dig Dug, that generation), so it's worth visiting if you're into that stuff and can put up with the PBR-drinking, ironic-t-shirt and black-rimmed-glasses crowd.
As the lawyer, and police officer both told me. Don't wound people. Either let them walk away, or kill them. Wounding them just puts you in court for the next 2 years while the thief rakes you for money. Point being, dead men tell no tales, and while it's possible next of kin will sue you, its your word against a dead thief (that tried to kill you, remember?). A guy in a wheel chair is sympathetic. Stories of a thug with a knife don't lead to sympathy.
What about that whole philosophical impact of having killed another human being? I'd rather be sued for 2 years than have to kill someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if you like right-wing loon jobs.
To be fair, I find Ron Paul an incredibly principled and honest politician, though if I don't want him near any position of real power in this country because I know he probably will follow through on his disastrous campaign promises.
I actually think Wikileaks has an important mission. I think they should have released a lot of the information at issue here. I don't think they should have released the names of Afghani civilians cooperating with the authorities. And I think Assange's response shows him to be a narcissist. That's it.
However I find it VERY hard to feel bad for someone that makes over 1000 times what the average middle class salaried worker makes. I'm pretty sure he can retire comfortably and his kids won't even really have to work ever again either.
Also hard to feel bad for someone who is taking those bonuses after firing so many employees and cutting the salaries of the remainder.
The cop tried to convince her how to best make up her story in front of my face. I was arrested. When we went to court, I provided microcassette audio and a transcript of what had happened. Cop was fired, and they tried the woman for perjury. Still made my life a nightmare.
Wow I know you doubtless want to keep your privacy here, but I'd love to hear the details about that.
At this stage are there any objections to simply unseating every single encumbent?
I don't know how every single incumbent is voting. I'm sure there are principled, effective congresspeople; voting all of them out would seem overly drastic.
Certainly a large influx of "freshmen" to the halls of congress couldn't make matters any worse.
Had something similar to that happen with the Republican revolution in the 90's. I seem to remember it making matter much worse.
The world is ending, someone made a clerical error!
When you take an invitation to help as being "aggresive, unhelpful and [...] rude", I'd say the problem doesn't quite lie with the one that extended it.
Did you even read what happened? Basically it was this (paraphrased):
Assange: If AI is complaining, why don't they help me redact it?
AI: We don't have a tremendous amount of resources, buy maybe we can help. Can we call you?
Assange: NO!!! I'M TOO BUSY!
Finally, if they released redacted documents. they would lose the credibility they have gained by releasing ALL the facts, no matter the consequences. Then people could (rightfully) question what they redacted and why.
And they could have answered "we only redacted the names of specific Afghani civilians, because revealing those names does not serve any greater purpose, and these people would face grave danger." You really think that shows they lack credibility? I think it adds moral credibility.
The biggest lie told right now by the "mainstream media" is that "everyone knew it", which can only mean that everyone knew that the war is a disaster and an atrocity. Now the masses know, thanks to Assange. Now they actually believe what is true.
You're missing the point. AI and a lot of the rest of us aren't attacking Assange for posting everything. We're attacking him for posting the name of Afghan civilians. And for not showing a single shred of remorse for the danger he's subjected them to, or for the death that resulted already. I think it's a good thing Wikileaks posted a lot of this stuff. The names of civilians is not one of them.
Seriously: What, exactly, is your point here? Is Assange wrong to infer that other organisations are distancing themselves because the US is bringing heat on them, quite likely through threats of reduced funding or cooperation?
Well, first of all, yes, if he thinks that he is wrong to think that Amnesty International is distancing itself because of US pressure he is astoundingly ignorant of AI and its relationship to the US.
But what I meant by narcissism is his demanding not that AI work with him to rectify the problem, but rather that he dictates what they will do, and if they don't accept unconditionally his demand they are "covering their ass." Refusing to take a phone call because he's too busy? Doing what, giving interviews? He exhibits an unfortunately common hacker stereotype; the neurotic moralizer who is convinced of his own moral superiority to everyone else.
If that's the case, then perhaps you could explain the merits of declining to support an organisation on the grounds that you don't like one of its members because you find him rude?
Oh, you've gleaned my lack of support of Wikileaks because I called Assange a narcissistic jerk? Overextrapolating a bit there, eh?
I stil have vivid memories of the first time I started Doom after 8 hours of downloading it off AOL. Unless you were a gamer at that time you have no idea what it was like to make that jump from Wolfenstein 3d to Doom.
It's easy for anyone to criticize any project. How do you propose to identify those who have useful skills and are genuinely trying to help a particular project?
I don't know, maybe by having that conference call Amnesty International was asking for?
An Amnesty official replied to say that while the group has limited resources, it wouldn't rule out the idea of helping, according to people familiar with the reply. The official suggested that Mr. Assange and the human-rights groups hold a conference call to discuss the matter.
Mr. Assange then replied: "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal," according to people familiar with the exchange.
Kind of comes off as a narcissistic jerk here.
I find lawyers charge way to much. We should allow visas for lawyers that will work for $20/hr. I wonder what the odds of getting that through congress would be?
There are huge numbers of licensed American attorneys who already will work for $20 an hour, don't need to import anyone.
Yeah, how come it's always the same scientists who have failed in developing technologies that will help us leave, who are telling us to leave?
And be honest about your complaints. First it was "no scholarship" and now eight years and her papers and books aren't enough
I said no significant body of scholarship. Yes, her eight years and her papers and books aren't enough. Why do you dishonestly put "now" in there like I've changed my position?
Also, how is lack of obvious politics a problem in a judge? Lack of political activism* seems like exactly what you ideally want. The fact that you see it as a problem suggests that she has politics you don't like, but aren't willing to admit because then everyone would know what you are.
"Activism"? Taking a position, ON EITHER SIDE, of compelling legal arguments of our day, should be a requirement for anyone who wants to be on the SC.
* She served under Clinton and Obama. I think you know her politics, don't you.
No, I don't know her politics. Neither do you.
"Career politician/administrator" does not refer necessarily to an objective count of how many years she's done something, it has to do with her apparent chosen career path and the statements she has made (or not made) in pursuing that path. Law professors love to give their opinions. The reason one might choose to refrain from doing so is likely because she doesn't want to sabotage future political/administrative positions. Glenn Greenwald has a great criticism of her here. Tellingly, her biggest supporters (like Lawrence Lessig) have not really been able to attack the facts he brings up, but their main defense is "I know her and she'll make a great SC justice," which is a stupid justification to pick her.
Almost every bad bill that's passed these last 4-5 years has been near-100% Democrat (like the renewal of the Patriot Act) while the Republicans opposed the bill (but lacked the numbers to block it).
I never really understood why people make patently false statements that are easily disproven. The majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Patriot Act renewal. The majority of Republicans voted for it. Every single Republican in the Senate voted for its renewal. The only Senators opposing it were Democrats.
Then please let me know how such a vaunted legal scholar in such prominent positions could have spent the past ten years without taking a stand on any of the critical legal issues of the day? The past ten years have seen fundamental, important legal issues become some of the most important in our nation's history, and she manages to get by without actually letting anyone know her position.
Law school dean is a political/administrative position, not an "academia" position.
No history of scholarship, unless you count being a fucking law professor and dean of the Harvard law school.
She has only four major articles in her career, was a law professor for a total of only 8 years, and "dean" is a political/administrative position, not a scholarly one.
But why would we count that? We don't like her politics.
I don't know her politics. Very few people seem to, which is one of the problems.
Nothing wrong with a SC nominee having no judicial or even trial advocacy experience, though you'd hope they'd at least have a significant body of legal scholarship. Kagan is very smart but she has none of these things, she's basically a career administrator/politician.
All states have self-defense justifications, not just Texas.
Also Barcade in Williamsburgh, Brooklyn has an astounding number of working, old-school arcade games (Joust, Gauntlet, Dig Dug, that generation), so it's worth visiting if you're into that stuff and can put up with the PBR-drinking, ironic-t-shirt and black-rimmed-glasses crowd.
As the lawyer, and police officer both told me. Don't wound people. Either let them walk away, or kill them. Wounding them just puts you in court for the next 2 years while the thief rakes you for money. Point being, dead men tell no tales, and while it's possible next of kin will sue you, its your word against a dead thief (that tried to kill you, remember?). A guy in a wheel chair is sympathetic. Stories of a thug with a knife don't lead to sympathy.
What about that whole philosophical impact of having killed another human being? I'd rather be sued for 2 years than have to kill someone.