But being a good citizen, I seek compromise as much as the next guy. So let's not raise taxes on everybody. That wouldn't be compromise. That wouldn't be bipartisan. That wouldn't be adult. It would make Alan Simpson cuss or something. So...let's just raise them on those making less than $200,000 per year.

Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:As for the WikiLeaks stuff, I don't understand how erring on the side of telling the truth translates to excusing the complete transparency/no secrets (and breaking the law) approach. There are professions where secrecy is essential. Talking to a therapist or attorney/client privilege, etc. I think diplomacy is right up there; countries aren't going to be frank with us if they think their comments are going to be splashed on the front pages worldwide.

I find this a very weak argument against wikileaks and the associated publishing papers. I can't imagine that you engage in a process like diplomacy without being fully aware of the risk of secret confidences being broken. It may cause diplomats to be more cautious in their procedures, but it's hardly going to stop folk talking to you. and if it wasn't wikileaks, someone was going to get this information at some point. If it was that easy to access, you'd have to assume that most of the intelligence agencies round the world have a fair idea of this content anyway.

It's a poor argument that attacks the consequences of a systematic weakness, and not the weakness itself. Obviously, since the leaks happened, there will be a review of how to prevent it in future. A foolish administration might review procedures to the point where it prevents information sharing. That would be bad for ye guys. You would like to think sane heads have prevailed (given that these leaks happened ages ago, and that the US government has been preparing for this moment for months). If not, well, more fool ye.

What amazes is me is that there wasn't nearly the same fuss about the information they dumped about the american military a bit back. That had just as much volume and content to be explored.

On a seperate note, assange made the following point in a Q & A session with the guardian yesterday, which I thought was a powerful one:

For the past four years one of our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts, journalists would be nothing.

the only way you learn anything in this world is when someone talks. Everything else is guesswork. Investigation can point you to the right sources, but ultimately, be you an intelligence officer, a diplomat, a reporter or a member of the police, you've got to get someone talking or leaking. I don't see how a country which frequently shouts from the heights the importance of the first amendment, a country which has in place legistlation to protect whistleblowing employees of the state, can do anything other than shrug and take the publicity hit of the leaks on the chin.

I would never argue that secrecy does not have a place in modern society. Neither would I argue for the protection of secrecy at all costs. The latter fosters an environment where people feel untouchable and can cast the consequences of their actions in a light which makes them feel good about themselves, no matter the cost to others.

Warszawa wrote:Let's Compromise on Taxes

But being a good citizen, I seek compromise as much as the next guy. So let's not raise taxes on everybody. That wouldn't be compromise. That wouldn't be bipartisan. That wouldn't be adult. It would make Alan Simpson cuss or something. So...let's just raise them on those making less than $200,000 per year.

I obviously had this tax cut argument all wrong

pacino wrote:we're trying really hard to turn good muslims into annoyed muslims

CalvinBall wrote:i feel like that john kerry would have won in 2004

lethal wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:i feel like that john kerry would have won in 2004

Where was that guy in 2004?

dajafi wrote:Maybe I'm missing a subtle yet important distinction between "conservatives" and Republicans. But the main consequence and, it seems, intention of Republican policies has been to make the largest slice of the pie that much bigger even as the size of the pie itself holds steady or shrinks a bit. And the public means by which we generally find the pie grows--investment in R&D and various human capital systems--these days get much more support from Democrats than Republicans, who seem to view war as the only thing government can be trusted to do. Meanwhile, competing pies--China's, say, or India's--are growing, as they do make those investments.

I honestly don't think it's generally understood how the US became the most successful civilization in human history. Laissez-faire economics wasn't it, though it's surely contributing to the growing risk of decline.

jerseyhoya wrote:I forget who the poster was that said Republicans saying they'd block unemployment insurance extensions was a negotiating ploy to make sure they got what they wanted on the taxes side of things, and it wasn't worth freaking out about UI possibly not being extended because it would be part of the final package.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:Maybe I'm missing a subtle yet important distinction between "conservatives" and Republicans. But the main consequence and, it seems, intention of Republican policies has been to make the largest slice of the pie that much bigger even as the size of the pie itself holds steady or shrinks a bit. And the public means by which we generally find the pie grows--investment in R&D and various human capital systems--these days get much more support from Democrats than Republicans, who seem to view war as the only thing government can be trusted to do. Meanwhile, competing pies--China's, say, or India's--are growing, as they do make those investments.

I honestly don't think it's generally understood how the US became the most successful civilization in human history. Laissez-faire economics wasn't it, though it's surely contributing to the growing risk of decline.

How the US became awesome, in no particular order:
1. Luck
2. Natural resources (ie. metals) reserves
3. Free markets
4. Good institutions
5. Huge productivity gains stemming from 1,2,3,4
6. Relative openness to new ideas and immigration

And I was going to put something how many elected leaders are idiots and should not be listened to, but I didnt feel the need to say that. It's implied in every post in this thread.

TenuredVulture wrote:You've left out our system of higher education, which though flawed, is still the envy of the world. (Interestingly enough, we do have something like a voucher program in higher education, public-private competition and cooperation, and no one is forced to go to their local college or university so when conservatives propose that stuff for K-12 they really are endorsing the US system of higher education...)

Finally, laissez-faire economics by itself doesn't work. It needs an appropriate system of values as its foundation, buttressed by regulations. If those values are under assault or have eroded, then laissez-faire economics will turn the US into Nigeria or something like that. This was Adam Smith's critical insight.

Warszawa wrote:Wikileaks dude arrrested for....sex crimes?