Who are you people who keep repeating this crap? If you spent less time commenting and more time actually reading you might actually have something to say.

Here. I'll do the work for you.

From TFA: "Mr. Assange is no boon to American journalists. His activities have already doomed proposed federal shield-law legislation protecting journalists' use of confidential sources in the just-adjourned Congress. An indictment of him could be followed by the judicial articulation of far more speech-limiting legal principles than currently exist with respect to even the most responsible reporting about both diplomacy and defense. If he is not charged or is acquitted of whatever charges may be made, that may well lead to the adoption of new and dangerously restrictive legislation. In more than one way, Mr. Assange may yet have much to answer for."

I can understand that Abrams is disappointed that the shield law is being shelved but how is that Assange's fault? Why should Assange be held responsible for legislation that the US congress chooses to vote on or not? Once again a Wikileaks detractor shows that they have an axe to grind unrelated to Wikileaks or Assange. He's old and mad that he's not getting what he wants i.e. Stay off my lawn Julian!

Also...Ellsberg himself says that The Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks are two sides of the same coin. That sounds like a bit more of a credible source for comparisons of mission statement and motives. You know...the guy who actually had the motive.

That is really the point of all this isn't it. The attitude in the Wired article should tell you everything. It's a bunch of bluster that makes Wired look petty and guilty at the same time. That to me should be the most telling part. They're dodging. Big time.

One of my favorite aspects to Greenwalds recent high-profile writings is that the targets of his questions keep shooting themselves in the foot with their responses. Michael Lind did this last week and I'm sure anyone who cares enough time to read through it all will find that Wired went straight down Lind's already face-palming path.

It's really a wonder to behold.

Consitutional lawyers have a way of being trolls against those who violate the constitution's tenants. That's kind of their job. You get a cookie.

I would just like to point out to those who reference Stuart Smalley when talking Franken (not you specifically tophermeyer). Smalley was a PARDOY of new-agey talk show host that was the life-coach of that time. He was making fun of those kinds of people and yet I constantly catch people referencing SS as if he was a real person or a character that Al took seriously as a healer or something. It's like people who don't get that Stephen Colbert is a parody character.

Now if you don't think the Stuart character is funny that's your opinion. I for one don't like SS but have always liked Franken's standup.

Comedy is one of the hardest industries to break into in any meaningful way period. Call up ANY comedian and ask them (assuming they make enough money to pay for some kind of phone service.)

Now why don't you tell us what you do for a living so that I can write two sentences that dismiss your life's work with ignorant generalizations.

I've never followed a posters comments on his own story until today because you're so obviously the biggest troll ever. Your statements contradict each other and no matter what a sensible commenter does to refute your points you keep up your inane refrain of bias and Democrat love and the claim nobody's refuting your points.

Google was not only threatened with an inquiry, an inquiry was actually made! Imagine that! Said inquiry said there isn't evidence of theft or wrongdoing so no charges are made. It's easy to imagine that charges were dropped as the information they collected was publicly broadcast over unsecured networks. It's a much more plausible explanation than conspiracy but I assume you will continue to project your bias issues on everyone else.

Whereas corporate bureaucracies are models of efficiency, see the big picture, and never waste a thing.

I'd like my guarantee written in blood please. You can fax it over.

I think you're going to have to explain that a bit better. What technology is going to stop the declining numbers? Why not just have sex like the rest of us?

Semantic difference. I know how DNA recombines. My point is that genetic purity is a silly notion. The more diverse the genes the better the individual traits. If the Japanese were less worried about preserving some romantic notion of blood purity and more serious about being members of a larger world community their numbers wouldn't be declining.

The idea that a culture can be bred out of existence is antithetical to how DNA works. DNA merges, it doesn't attack and destroy other DNA.

It is rare for a populous to die out from a culturally imposed social dysfunction which is what makes Japan so interesting. They could breed themselves to healthy numbers if they really wanted to.

Japanese culture will go down in the history books as one of the most interesting and self-destructive cultures of all time. They're essentially destroying themselves (both literally with suicide and figuratively by not breeding enough to replace their population numbers) and seem to be in some kind of race to replace themselves with robots rather than suffer the indignity of opening their culture to outsiders. My wish is that the burakumin take to the streets and impose a cultural uprising that will set Japan back on a course toward healthy minds, equality, and some damn common-sense. If they wanted to throw animal blood on the attendees of Tokyo U that would be good too.

I know a lot of people think Japanese culture is really cool as I once did. You won't think it's so cool if you dig past the bright lights and anime to see the seriously f'd up stuff that goes on there. I would go as far as to say that they're culture is more depraved and sad than ours (US Urban North East-Cost).

Malcolm Gladwell would agree with you.

The ironic part of this is that you need not look further than human behavioral scientists to help solve this problem. It is also possible that the whole idea of anything human-based being "non-biased" is a fantasy made up to represent an ideal that will never happen. Humans are just biased to their physiology and environment. End of story.