Posts tagged Wikileaks

Tu quoque (Cont’d)

    <p><a href="http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/gDo9iJCNKt8/lol-judith-miller-cr.html">LOL: Judith Miller criticizes Wikileaks&#39; Assange for not verifying his  sources. <cite>Boing Boing</cite> (2011-01-18)</a>:</p><blockquote><q>Why is disgraced former New York Times reporter Judith Miller not fond of Wikileaks and Julian Assange? "Because he didn't care at all about attempting to verify the information that he was putting out or determine whether or not it would hurt anyone," she said.</q></blockquote>

Sometimes I am genuinely surprised when the cognitive dissonance doesn’t make somebody’s head explode.

Contra-Sequitur Watch: the New York Times Op-Ed page wins again

In logic, a non sequitur is the fallacy of asserting a conclusion which simply does not follow from the given premises. The world being what it is, I noted a while back that that isn’t a strong enough criticism for some popular arguments; we need a new category, the contrarium sequitur (or contra-sequitur for short), which is the fallacy of asserting a conclusion which is exactly the opposite of the conclusion that you should draw from the given premises.

The New York Times Op-Ed page has always a particularly fertile field for picking ripe contra-sequiturs. That’s no doubt partly a function of the sort of people they employ. But I don’t think it’s just those particular guys; it’s really a feature of the house style, and perhaps an inevitable product of the intellectual environment when Very Serious People set themselves to issuing important opinions about matters of public concern.

Any political hack can churn out something that tries to shoehorn unruly facts into a predetermined party line, but it takes a special kind of environment to go beyond mere hackery day after day, to maintain such consistency in coming up with conclusions so exquisitely opposed to what the facts obviously suggest. For example, consider the recent online battle over Wikileaks, and the ongoing government efforts — led by the Obama administration and by Senators like Joe Lieberman — to pressure corporations like Amazon, Dyn Inc. (EveryDNS), et al. into cutting off the Internet services that Wikileaks needs to keep its website running, and to pressure payment processors like PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and Bank of America to cut off their access to funding, in the interests of national security and the alleged public interest. Many people see this and offer opinions which are better or worse informed, better thought out or worse thought out.

But only the New York Times Op-Ed page could take this government-driven campaign of intimidation to shut down Wikileaks and take it as proof of a crying need for more extensive government regulatory controls, which would allow the United States federal government to take a more active role in directing the business decisions of banks and payment processors. So that they can protect irksome bloggers, risky organizations, and unpopular opinions from being shut down by risk-averse banks, you see. This decision should not be left solely up to business-as-usual among the banks — so, instead, they’ll leave it up to someone you can always count on to stand up for open debate and a free press for organizations like Wikileaks — the United States federal government.

All in the public interest, of course.

Wednesday Lazy Linking

    <ul>
<li><p><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/13/why-was-the-aclu-silent-about">Q: Why Has the ACLU Been Silent About TSA Abuses? A: Because You Haven't Been Listening. Radley Balko, <cite>Radley Balko: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts.</cite> (2010-12-13)</a>. <q>In May, Matt Welch noted a storm of criticism from the right toward the ACLU for not defending some kids who were sent home from school for wearing shirts depicting the American flag to a Cinco de Mayo celebration. The problem was that the ACLU had intervened on the kids&#39;...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Monday 2010-12-13.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://www.modestoanarcho.org/2010/12/we-can-beat-you-but-not-pay-you.html">We Can Beat You, But Not Pay You. <cite>Modesto Anarcho</cite> (2010-12-13)</a>. The State is not welfare. It is not social service. The State is violence. <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Monday 2010-12-13.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://twitter.com/notjessewalker/statuses/14334017243447296">notjessewalker: Why can't Americans just set aside mindless partisanship and embrace mindless bipartisanship? #nolabels. <cite>Twitter / notjessewalker</cite> (2010-12-13)</a>. <q>notjessewalker: Why can't Americans just set aside mindless partisanship and embrace mindless bipartisanship? #nolabels</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Monday 2010-12-13.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MarketUrbanism/~3/dAbasQyvSyY/">The mirage of revealed preferences. Stephen Smith, <cite>Market Urbanism</cite> (2010-11-24)</a>. <q>I often hear from libertarian-inclined defenders of the suburban status quo that the fact that American is so overwhelmingly suburban is proof that it’s what Americans want. Economists call this “revealed preference,” but it could also be understood as voting with your feet and wallet. People have made the decision...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Monday 2010-12-13.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://eyeofthestorm.blogs.com/eye_of_the_storm/2010/12/i-cant-do-physics-because-i-cant-do-the-math-but-let-me-say-in-a-half-assed-way-that-i-dont-think-we-should-let-physicists.html">i can&#39;t do physics, because i can&#39;t do the math. but let me say. Captain Capitulation, <cite>eye of the storm</cite> (2010-12-13)</a>. <q>i can&#39;t do physics, because i can&#39;t do the math. but let me say in defense of my turf that i don&#39;t think we should let physicists loose in the realms of metaphysics and epistemology. hawking, as the tls review puts it, thinks the reverse: philosophy is &#39;dead&#39; because it&#39;s not...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Tuesday 2010-12-14.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://flipfloppingjoy.com/2010/12/14/3733/">behind the curtain. <cite>flip flopping joy</cite> (2010-12-15)</a>. The State is male in the political sense. So is the Department of State. <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-12-15.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://twitter.com/notjessewalker/statuses/14904197661073408">notjessewalker: Mixed metaphor alert: "The bottom line is that it is a fast moving train and that has become clear" http://bit.ly/dOogX4. <cite>Twitter / notjessewalker</cite> (2010-12-14)</a>. <q>notjessewalker: Mixed metaphor alert: "The bottom line is that it is a fast moving train and that has become clear" http://bit.ly/dOogX4</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-12-15.)</em></p></li>

Monday Lazy Linking

    <ul>
<li><p><a href="http://marjaerwin.livejournal.com/17850.html">Why are they afraid of Wikileaks? <cite>Marja Erwin</cite> (2010-11-17)</a>. <q>The authoritarians claim that we have no right to object to invasions of our privacy and freedom of association. They institute systematic surveillance and sometimes assassinations, including COINTELPRO and its successors, on these grounds. Yet they condemn Wikileaks, calling for internet censorship, arrests, or assassinations. They insist that the people...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Saturday 2010-11-20.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/DailyBrickbats/~3/_1YuKWMsUxk/does-the-punishment-fit-the-cr">Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? <cite>Daily Brickbats</cite> (2010-11-19)</a>. <q>Denver police officer Devin Sparks says that Michael DeHerrera tried to punch him and he had to defend himself. But a video showed DeHerrera was just talking on his cell phone when Sparks tackled him, beat him repeatedly with a baton, and slammed a car door on him. The city...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Monday 2010-11-22.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://drunkenatheist.com/2010/11/19/hey-i-thought-this-was-a-libertarian-blog-not-a-crafting-one/">Hey, I thought this was a libertarian blog, not a crafting one! drunkenatheist, <cite>Drunkenatheist</cite> (2010-11-19)</a>. <q>Awhile back, there was a discussion on Facebook that had morphed into a discussion on food and agorism.  I don’t remember what started it, but I can assure you that it had little to nothing to do with the endpoint.  I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I recall...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Monday 2010-11-22.)</em></p></li>

Friday Lazy Linking

    <ul>
<li><p><a href="http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/archives/2010/07/23/will-it-optimize/">Will It Optimize? John Gruber, <cite>Daring Fireball</cite> (2010-07-23)</a>. <q>Another splendidly intricate post from Peter Ammon. Only of interest if you enjoy puzzles on GCC optimizations.  ★ </q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-08-04.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://daringfireball.net/2010/07/improved_regex_for_matching_urls">★ An Improved Liberal, Accurate Regex Pattern for Matching URLs. John Gruber, <cite>Daring Fireball</cite> (2010-07-27)</a>. <q>Back in November, I posted a regex pattern for matching URLs. It seems to have proven quite useful for others, and, even better, based on feedback from those who’ve used it, I’ve since improved it in several ways. The problem the pattern attempts to solve: identify the URLs in an...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-08-04.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://catandgirl.com/?p=2567">On Broadway. <cite>Cat and Girl</cite> (2010-08-04)</a>. The joke only works under the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-08-04.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://cherylcline.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/speaking-the-truth-is-for-losers-and-egomaniacs/">Speaking the Truth is for Losers and Egomaniacs. cherylcline, <cite>der Blaustrumpf</cite> (2010-08-05)</a>. <q>In Savage Mules:  The Democrats and Endless War, Dennis Perrin writes that “Speaking the truth is for losers and egomaniacs.”  Had I read that before Wikileaks gained much traction, I probably would have agreed without fully comprehending.  In light of the accusations hurled against Julian Assange, however, I see that...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2010-08-05.)</em></p></li>