And Matt B, you're posting on the wrong thread - and you should be ashamed of yourself. We don't need morals for dealing with people we like. We need them for situations involving people we don't like much. In your case, if your politics keeps you from being disgusted at an act of pure evil, you should maybe give up politics.
In your case, if your politics keeps you from being disgusted at an act of pure evil, you should maybe give up politics.
Seems like the right thread to me - the link went to a WSJ piece about how wrong the Yahoo Mail hacking was.
Funny thing, though: I started doing a little Googling to see what the journalistic standard was for stolen (or missappropriated) information was, and this was literally the first result of my search (try it yourself! "journalism ethics stolen information"):
It may have been unethical for the listserv member to forward the postings, but it is perfectly ethical--indeed standard--for a journalist to publish them once received (provided he himself is not a member of the listserv.) As a journalist, I have no obligation to protect a confidential relationship between third parties. If your mother, or wife, or lawyer comes to me and reports the contents of a private conversation, I will publish it. The other party may be divorced, disbarred, or disowned, but my conscience will be perfectly clear; depending on the beat, many journalists get a large portion of their information from people violating trusts.
Pure evil, indeed. I imagine you must now disavow yourself of this blog? Or at least of its politics?
For my part, I completely understand why it might be news that Palin conducted government communications "off the books," and did so using a lightly protected Yahoo account, which is an act of mindboggingly bad judgment, if not outright stupidity. (And I don't use that term lightly).
Krugman could have pointed out that Canadians likely to attend a Rockefeller University panel discussion (a private institution with annual tuition over $30k, plus the expense of living in New York City) were also more likely to be Canadians who disliked their health care system. So using them as a measure of how unpopular the Canadian health care system was in Canada would be an example of selection bias. I note that in the vote after the panel, the attendees voted 58-34 in favor of government-sponsored universal health care coverage.
On the Palin Yahoo account hacking thing, the hackers should be prosecuted but also Palin's use of Yahoo emails needs to be investigated- just as the Bush Admin's same use of non-governmental email services needs investigating. They're the same thing.
Megan, a short quote or pointer ("hey, the Krugman thing is almost at the bottom") would have been helpful.
So using them as a measure of how unpopular the Canadian health care system was in Canada would be an example of selection bias.
This point is entirely reasonable when made by somebody else, but it was Krugman's (foolish) decision to try to use them to make his point. If he had gotten the result he wanted, he wouldn't have then gone on to discuss selection bias, he would have told the story over and over to show that he was right.
That is to say, he may be right on the merits, but from the perspective of advocacy, he screwed up pretty badly, and it's totally fair to poke fun at him for it.
Could we also note that Krugman's remarks, as transcribed, are slightly less coherent than either George Bush's or Sarah Palin's usual efforts. Yet, strangely enough, I am sure he thinks he is much smarter than either of them.
Apologies for not scrolling to the bottom of the page for the Krugman thing.
MikeR: I don't see why I should be ashamed of myself. I stand by my criticisms of the WSJ's journalistic standards wrt their inflammatory sub-head ("Do journalists care about your privacy if you aren't a terrorist?").
liberalrob said, "I note that in the vote after the panel, the attendees voted 58-34 in favor of government-sponsored universal health care coverage."
hmmmm......did the audience truly understand what they were voting for?
Were they aware of the dying man in the UK who had to go to his equivalent of the Supreme Court to get the life-saving meds because his government-sponsored healthcare provider could deny him those meds?
Were they aware that government-sponsored is not the same as government-guaranteed?
Wow, jwh, that really sounds nice. If I was laid off and couldn't pay for my life-saving meds, the Supreme Court would not even bother to hear my case. Government-sponsored healthcare FTW!
1) There's a difference between the Feds tapping your phone and a two-bit hacker getting into your email.
The difference being that FBI agents are generally honest and criminals generally aren't.
2) Not all people getting their phones tapped were "terrorists.".
Name a non-terrorist whose phone was tapped as part of the terrorist surveillance program.
3) SP was using her yahoo account to evade legitimate public records laws.
Either provide proof or admit you're lying.
Some of these emails should have been public all along.
Which ones? Like the AP article notes, the account contained only innocuous personal email. Are we supposed to believe that Palin anticipated being hacked by some Democratic Congressman's son and deleted all the incriminating email in advance?
In fairness to Krugman, his ultimate point (that Canadians are generally happy with our health care system) is correct; he just had the misfortune to start with an unrepresentative sample.
BradL, MattB, Jane Galt's conscience may be perfectly clear, but evil it is. Unfortunately, certain professions in America are today taught codes of ethics that are obviously completely unethical. Obvious, that is, to anyone not in those professions. Journalism and trial law come to mind.
And here we are anyhow not dealing with journalism. The evil thief was very disappointed that he found nothing newsworthy in the revelations; it was a simple act of destroying someone's privacy, nothing more. He found a way to hurt someone he hated.
The confusion of moral judgments here is very disturbing to me. We have two acts: One is very large and important, but something where honest people can disagree. Lots of nice conservatives find these kinds of actions by our government to be both moral and constitutional. There are honest-minded lawyers on both sides of the constitutional question. Take which side you want, but understand that honest men may disagree with you.
The other issue is relatively small and unimportant, but ought to be completely clear. No one can justify what this evil individual did.
I find it very disturbing that otherwise decent people say, If you disagree with me on issue A, you are obviously so devoid of morals that you have no business judging issue B.
Most of us found out by third grade or so that lots of times other people disagree with us, and sometimes they are even right. And even when they're not, it doesn't mean they aren't trying to be.
Perhaps Krugman is not a good listener. Most everybody in the world thinks and says that they have a terrible health care system - except when they need to use it. That attitude is completely compatible with their usual defense of their system as compared to your system. Theirs is terrible - except for the wonderful treatment Aunt Violet recieved last year - but it is still prefereable to yours.
Could we also note that Krugman's remarks, as transcribed, are slightly less coherent than either George Bush's or Sarah Palin's usual efforts. Yet, strangely enough, I am sure he thinks he is much smarter than either of them.
While falling short of a Shakespearean sonnet, Krugman's comments do contain a subject, verb and several adjectives, components of language that Bush seems to lack on a daily basis. In fact, his comments also contain a thesis, a line of reasoning and the ability to change that line of reasoning when confronted with evidence that the idea won't be well-received (all of which are absent in every press conference W has ever given). I realize you dislike Krugman but comparing his verbal talents with (of all people!) Bush seems like an odd path for criticism.
While I'm not familiar enough with Palin yet to make a judgement, I can unequivocally say that yes, Paul Krugman is smarter than George W. Bush. I realize this goes against the repeated delusion that "Bush only looks stupid but he's actually quite brilliant." But nobody really believes that, do they?
So using them as a measure of how unpopular the Canadian health care system was in Canada would be an example of selection bias.
Of course, using those seven people the way Krugman wanted to, as a measure of how popular the Canadian health care system was in Canada, is not a scientific poll either. Krugman's intellectual error was in calling out seven people to prove his point, not that he called out the wrong seven people.
Reading the e-mail at the top, I find it very ironic. 36 years ago, Republican creeps rifled through the private papers of Democratic candidates in order to find incriminating or embarrassing information. They did not do so at the behest of the Republican party or its candidate, but when they were caught, the Republican party tried to cover up the affair.
The result is that the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, had to resign. The place: The Watergate Hotel.
Now we have Democratic creeps rifling through private files looking for incriminating or embarrassing information, all probably too young to remember 1972. And the first reaction of Democrats was the same as the first reaction of Republicans then. Tell people that is was really OK in the context of a campaign.
The American people disagreed and punished the GOP for this transgression. I wonder whether we will find that sort of thing more acceptable now.
I thought rule #1 was Not To Stand Up.
1) There's a difference between the Feds tapping your phone and a two-bit hacker getting into your email.
2) Not all people getting their phones tapped were "terrorists."
3) SP was using her yahoo account to evade legitimate public records laws. Some of these emails should have been public all along.
That the WSJ willfully ignores these facts calls into question their right to call any other journalists "hacks."
Heh. (you have to search for Krugman).
And Matt B, you're posting on the wrong thread - and you should be ashamed of yourself. We don't need morals for dealing with people we like. We need them for situations involving people we don't like much. In your case, if your politics keeps you from being disgusted at an act of pure evil, you should maybe give up politics.
In your case, if your politics keeps you from being disgusted at an act of pure evil, you should maybe give up politics.
Seems like the right thread to me - the link went to a WSJ piece about how wrong the Yahoo Mail hacking was.
Funny thing, though: I started doing a little Googling to see what the journalistic standard was for stolen (or missappropriated) information was, and this was literally the first result of my search (try it yourself! "journalism ethics stolen information"):
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/005765.php
Money quote:
Pure evil, indeed. I imagine you must now disavow yourself of this blog? Or at least of its politics?
For my part, I completely understand why it might be news that Palin conducted government communications "off the books," and did so using a lightly protected Yahoo account, which is an act of mindboggingly bad judgment, if not outright stupidity. (And I don't use that term lightly).
That the WSJ willfully ignores these facts calls into question their right to call any other journalists "hacks."
Okay, that pun is just bad. :)
I thought rule #1 was Not To Stand Up.
Posted by Bergamot | September 22, 2008 2:57 PM
That's for Not Being Seen.
Krugman could have pointed out that Canadians likely to attend a Rockefeller University panel discussion (a private institution with annual tuition over $30k, plus the expense of living in New York City) were also more likely to be Canadians who disliked their health care system. So using them as a measure of how unpopular the Canadian health care system was in Canada would be an example of selection bias. I note that in the vote after the panel, the attendees voted 58-34 in favor of government-sponsored universal health care coverage.
On the Palin Yahoo account hacking thing, the hackers should be prosecuted but also Palin's use of Yahoo emails needs to be investigated- just as the Bush Admin's same use of non-governmental email services needs investigating. They're the same thing.
Megan, a short quote or pointer ("hey, the Krugman thing is almost at the bottom") would have been helpful.
So using them as a measure of how unpopular the Canadian health care system was in Canada would be an example of selection bias.
This point is entirely reasonable when made by somebody else, but it was Krugman's (foolish) decision to try to use them to make his point. If he had gotten the result he wanted, he wouldn't have then gone on to discuss selection bias, he would have told the story over and over to show that he was right.
That is to say, he may be right on the merits, but from the perspective of advocacy, he screwed up pretty badly, and it's totally fair to poke fun at him for it.
Brad,
You're conflating stolen and leaked - a big distinction.
There is also the AP not cooperating with a federal investigation in which they are involved (e-mail communications with thief).
And there still is no evidence of the behavior you ascribe to Palin. The person who went looking for it, admittedly said it wasn't there.
The Krug's Q+A snippet is at the bottom.
Could we also note that Krugman's remarks, as transcribed, are slightly less coherent than either George Bush's or Sarah Palin's usual efforts. Yet, strangely enough, I am sure he thinks he is much smarter than either of them.
Apologies for not scrolling to the bottom of the page for the Krugman thing.
MikeR: I don't see why I should be ashamed of myself. I stand by my criticisms of the WSJ's journalistic standards wrt their inflammatory sub-head ("Do journalists care about your privacy if you aren't a terrorist?").
liberalrob said, "I note that in the vote after the panel, the attendees voted 58-34 in favor of government-sponsored universal health care coverage."
hmmmm......did the audience truly understand what they were voting for?
Were they aware of the dying man in the UK who had to go to his equivalent of the Supreme Court to get the life-saving meds because his government-sponsored healthcare provider could deny him those meds?
Were they aware that government-sponsored is not the same as government-guaranteed?
I suspect not.
Wow, jwh, that really sounds nice. If I was laid off and couldn't pay for my life-saving meds, the Supreme Court would not even bother to hear my case. Government-sponsored healthcare FTW!
BTW, anyone who criticizes Palin for using the Yahoo account is "blaming the victim".
1) There's a difference between the Feds tapping your phone and a two-bit hacker getting into your email.
The difference being that FBI agents are generally honest and criminals generally aren't.
2) Not all people getting their phones tapped were "terrorists.".
Name a non-terrorist whose phone was tapped as part of the terrorist surveillance program.
3) SP was using her yahoo account to evade legitimate public records laws.
Either provide proof or admit you're lying.
Some of these emails should have been public all along.
Which ones? Like the AP article notes, the account contained only innocuous personal email. Are we supposed to believe that Palin anticipated being hacked by some Democratic Congressman's son and deleted all the incriminating email in advance?
In fairness to Krugman, his ultimate point (that Canadians are generally happy with our health care system) is correct; he just had the misfortune to start with an unrepresentative sample.
BradL, MattB, Jane Galt's conscience may be perfectly clear, but evil it is. Unfortunately, certain professions in America are today taught codes of ethics that are obviously completely unethical. Obvious, that is, to anyone not in those professions. Journalism and trial law come to mind.
And here we are anyhow not dealing with journalism. The evil thief was very disappointed that he found nothing newsworthy in the revelations; it was a simple act of destroying someone's privacy, nothing more. He found a way to hurt someone he hated.
The confusion of moral judgments here is very disturbing to me. We have two acts: One is very large and important, but something where honest people can disagree. Lots of nice conservatives find these kinds of actions by our government to be both moral and constitutional. There are honest-minded lawyers on both sides of the constitutional question. Take which side you want, but understand that honest men may disagree with you.
The other issue is relatively small and unimportant, but ought to be completely clear. No one can justify what this evil individual did.
I find it very disturbing that otherwise decent people say, If you disagree with me on issue A, you are obviously so devoid of morals that you have no business judging issue B.
Most of us found out by third grade or so that lots of times other people disagree with us, and sometimes they are even right. And even when they're not, it doesn't mean they aren't trying to be.
Perhaps Krugman is not a good listener. Most everybody in the world thinks and says that they have a terrible health care system - except when they need to use it. That attitude is completely compatible with their usual defense of their system as compared to your system. Theirs is terrible - except for the wonderful treatment Aunt Violet recieved last year - but it is still prefereable to yours.
While falling short of a Shakespearean sonnet, Krugman's comments do contain a subject, verb and several adjectives, components of language that Bush seems to lack on a daily basis. In fact, his comments also contain a thesis, a line of reasoning and the ability to change that line of reasoning when confronted with evidence that the idea won't be well-received (all of which are absent in every press conference W has ever given). I realize you dislike Krugman but comparing his verbal talents with (of all people!) Bush seems like an odd path for criticism.
While I'm not familiar enough with Palin yet to make a judgement, I can unequivocally say that yes, Paul Krugman is smarter than George W. Bush. I realize this goes against the repeated delusion that "Bush only looks stupid but he's actually quite brilliant." But nobody really believes that, do they?
So using them as a measure of how unpopular the Canadian health care system was in Canada would be an example of selection bias.
Of course, using those seven people the way Krugman wanted to, as a measure of how popular the Canadian health care system was in Canada, is not a scientific poll either. Krugman's intellectual error was in calling out seven people to prove his point, not that he called out the wrong seven people.
Reading the e-mail at the top, I find it very ironic. 36 years ago, Republican creeps rifled through the private papers of Democratic candidates in order to find incriminating or embarrassing information. They did not do so at the behest of the Republican party or its candidate, but when they were caught, the Republican party tried to cover up the affair.
The result is that the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, had to resign. The place: The Watergate Hotel.
Now we have Democratic creeps rifling through private files looking for incriminating or embarrassing information, all probably too young to remember 1972. And the first reaction of Democrats was the same as the first reaction of Republicans then. Tell people that is was really OK in the context of a campaign.
The American people disagreed and punished the GOP for this transgression. I wonder whether we will find that sort of thing more acceptable now.
Doug