Is the tech industry turning free love SF into a wealth-driven caste system?

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201209250900
http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/how-much-tech-can-one-city-take

This topic is quite inflammatory, but just thought I'd put it out there (I don't necessarily agree with the whole argument, and of generalizing a whole industry, but it's better than discussing reality TV!). I guess this is basically the same story as what Wall St. did to NYC. Of course the tech booms brought a lot of money and non-tech jobs to the Bay, but with some costs. Some of the guest's points:

- SF is giving preferential tax treatment to some tech firms, even though other valuable industries could use the lift
- The demand for high-paying tech jobs is driving up rent and other costs for millions of others not employed in tech (and even $100K engineers have to have roommates and can't afford a car)
- Tekkies exists in a "cocoon", as they are just working all the time, are often immigrants to SF, and therefore do not show much civic engagement with the "real SF"
- Despite some high-profile donations from super-rich execs who barely felt it, tech people are generally "selfish" and aren't giving back to the communities that enabled their careers (there is a popular trend of hipster, self-absorbed tekkie libertarianism)
-  "The unique urban features that have made San Francisco so appealing to a new generation of digital workers—its artistic ferment, its social diversity, its trailblazing progressive consciousness—are deteriorating, driven out of the city by the tech boom itself, and the rising real estate prices that go with it." - though it's unclear how much prices would have risen and culture would have changed anyway (ask the black people that used to live in SF before gentrification).
- Really, how much is the next social gaming or shopping app startup contributing to society's benefit - and is that worth the loss of SF uniqueness (it would be a shame if the city becomes just another sterile commercial zone)?

But regardless, it is against the American and San Franciscan democratic, pluralistic spirit to have an elite class of tekkies and investors dominating valuable metro areas, with the rest of the people serving as their supporting underclass but unable to afford to live within 50 miles of their jobs. That is a major social, economic, and moral problem - and one industry is not fully to blame of course.

Why do people want to vote for Romney?

All this being said I've been curious.  What are the legitimate reasons for voting for these guys?  Clearly we are a liberal bunch, some of us more so than others.  And whenever I watch daily show I see some pretty ridiculous out takes of the GOP placing feet directly into their mouths.  Am I in so deep I can't see it?  Did I literally drink all the kool-ade?

I mean, the BEST i can offer to Mitt is that I can find a reasonable seed for his statement but that the statement itself is undeniably wrong, offensive, and stupid.  Who is voting for these guys?

 

---------

Let's exclude the super rich and libertarian extremists for a moment, because they constitute so few votes. Who are the Republican base? White, Christian, suburban & rural people in the Midwest and South (more men than women). Why do they not vote Democrat? Forgive my Romney-esque generalizations, but many are following the narrative carefully crafted by GOP strategists, right wing media, and others. Liberals are not real Americans. They want to take away our god, our guns, our success, and our freedoms - and let the "un-Americans" take over - illegals, gays, lazy welfare people, other minorities, etc. Before, the story was the liberals wanted to give the country to the commies, but since then we've beaten the commies, so just hate the liberals directly instead. Liberals want America to be weak and let our enemies win. They want to reverse all the things that they believe made America great. So when that's your opponent, even a douche like Romney looks like your savior. The facts don't even matter at this point.

Romney keeps asking, "Are you better off now than in 2008?" The answer should be a resounding HELL YES! We actually have an economy today. Obama doesn't deserve all the credit for averting depression (and we can blame him for many unmet expectations), but I'm just saying that question is ridiculously rhetorical. Unfortunately for many in the GOP base, they can't directly feel or perceive how good they have it now vs. how bad it could have been with a different leader (can you imagine what would have happened if Romney-Ryan were elected in 2008?). How can having it good hurt this bad? Well compare it to the 1930s. However, the GOP base can perceive that this recovery has been terribly disappointing. I don't even want to call it a recovery because only Wall St. has recovered - it's more like disaster averted, and we're in limbo on where to go next - up or down? The GOP base (and most Americans) saw their savings and home values shrivel, their employment situations become more precarious, the futures of their kids looking more dim, and the country and culture they love ostensibly deteriorating.

And all the while, this popular, cool half-black dude is running the country (into the ground apparently). Some people seem to be winning during the last 4 years, or so Fox says: corrupt Democrat politicians, gays (repeal of DADT), illegals (Dream Act), China (their GDP growth is shrinking severely BTW, but most voters can't define GDP), the Muslims (despite Al Qaeda nearly wiped out and Iranian nukes set back for years), and lazy deadbeats (Obamacare, loosening of welfare eligibility that in fact never happened). So not only is the GOP base hurting, they think the un-Americans are winning. And they can't stand that - some of that backlash, intolerance, and xenophobia fueled the Tea Party.

As we commented in a previous thread, the GOP base feel like the real Americans aren't getting what they are entitled to. They are good, Christian, patriotic, and hard-working - but why is their life so hard and their country so unimpressive? They're doing everything right, but not getting ahead and actually losing ground. Ironically, Obama has said the same thing about the plight of the US middle class and the American Dream. So both must be onto something. Many metrics show how the middle-class has really taken a beating since the 1990's. But what are the root causes of that? We've already discussed the liberal side of that question (what I would like to think of as the "likely explanation"), and I guess the conservative side is: blame Obama and his supporters.

So when someone like Romney comes along with a seemingly polished business background, conservative Christian values (apart from his time in Mass.), and talking about restoring America to greatness, American exceptionalism, never apologizing for America, cutting regulations, creating jobs, lowering taxes, kicking our enemies' asses, strengthening the military, cutting off the deadbeats and tax-and-spend liberals, protecting our freedoms, putting god everywhere, yadda yadda (totally devoid of facts and reality), well that is fairly appealing to the GOP base and some frustrated, desperate voters. Romney wasn't their first choice obviously (the long, ugly GOP nomination process is evidence), but "any Republican" is better than Obama at this point (just as any Dem was better for many fed-up voters in 2008).

Mother Jones exposes Romney at a private fundraising event

On the 1-year anniversary of OWS, here's a gem for the cause:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

I guess his true colors come out when he's with his fellow 1%ers. Ironically, he sounds a lot much more comfortable, presidential, and intellectual there than when we've seen him with the press or on the campaign trail pandering to the "regular folks" (where he is usually awkward and ludicrous). I guess Romney didn't become CEO without having some verbal skills with the right crowds.

Even for him, it's shocking how explicitly he dismisses the "lower 47%" who are solidly Democrat. As a presidential candidate and a possible president, "it's not his job" to care about them - half of America! Of course his assumptions about those folks are way off, which may make it easier for him and his peers to justify policies that further disadvantage them vs. the upper class.

I did find his comments about independent voters fairly interesting. He answered an audience question that he can't go after Obama personally, because the independents who voted for Obama in 2008 still like the guy (and Mitt's likeability rating is so low). They are disappointed with Obama's performance but won't reject him as a failure, because that would mean admitting to themselves that they voted poorly. They instead blame conditions during his presidency. So all Romney can do is just keep pushing big lies about the economy to those voters, and hope that they are persuaded.

---------

Now Romney follows up with his great grasp of foreign affairs: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/romney-secret-video-israeli-palestinian-middle-east-peace

He's clearly less comfortable with these matters, as he reverted to his usual whiny, rambling, opaque nature. First the Palestinians have an inferior culture, and now none of them are interested in peace. I wonder if he's ever even spoken with a Palestinian.

--------

How much of what he said is actually wrong and how much of it is saying the right (or arguably right) thing the wrong way?

--------

I take issue with the substance of what he said and how he delivered it. It was an attack on nearly half the population. The ironic thing is that many of the 47% that don't pay taxes are actually Republicans (senior citizens, military, veterans, white working class, etc.). I imagine that a fair percentage of the voting class in the "red" America are in that class. But he just groups them together as "victims". It is very degrading.

I don't think most people who don't make enough money to pay federal income tax consider themselves victims or are necessarily content with their situation. I think the majority are working or even have multiple jobs to support themselves or their families and Romney's comments are a spit in the face. I would dare say an insult to their labor.

And, yes, I think the government does have an obligation to provide a minimum level of health insurance to its citizens. I also think the government has a responsibilty to provide for education and providing subsistance and to promote policies that encourage responsible job growth. The whole society benefits not just those who are helped.

In addition, his comments are misleading because practically everyone in this country pays some sort of tax even- even those making the least who can least afford to do so. Payroll taxes, social security, sales tax, state tax, gas tax, propert tax, etc.

What Romney and a segment of the Republican party don't understand is that everyone needs help at one point or anther. At some point everyone needs a break. Even the most successful entrepreneurs (like Romney or Trump for example) couldn't have done it alone. They mistakenly believe that by recognizing this obvious fact they would repudiate the theory that hard work, determination, ingenuity, and risk taking are the keys to success. No one disputes that these are the keys but these traits alone are not always enough.

--------

I agree with your comments and thx for writing.

For Romney, let me put it this way: what does he ever get right about socioeconomics?

Let's face it, we are ALL dependent on government to some extent, from Romney down to the homeless. Profitable companies can't exist without IP protection, transport and communication infrastructure, a central bank, etc. (unless they are criminal entities, which some are). If government somehow disappeared or became totally libertarian, can you imagine an America where everything was privately owned and unregulated? Knowing Americans, it would make Mad Max look like Utopia. 

Romney is complaining like it's somehow wrong that those who may consume more gov't services will vote Dem no matter what. Well duh, what are the GOP offering them as a better alternative? They want to cut programs and make their lives harder - why would they support that agenda? And remember Mitt when you were governor, you seemed to endorse the idea that healthcare was a right regardless of ability to pay.

It's not like Obama is complaining that all the super-rich are GOP and won't change no matter what. And Obama has given them plenty of reason to like him: the S&P500 tanked under the last GOP president, and soared under him. He hasn't cleaned up Wall St. much at all, though he probably would want to do more. But what those fools don't understand is a smartly regulated Wall St. is BETTER for business. When there is more trust and transparency, people will invest more and markets will be more efficient without costly scandals and bubbles. But despite their love for the free market, I guess they prefer to make their money through arbitrage, trickery, and other uncompetitive, opaque means.

But as L said, plenty of rich people vote Dem and plenty of poor non-taxpayers vote GOP. I think the average net worth of a GOP voter is slightly higher, but that is likely the ultra rich skewing the measurement. The 2 parties are probably more similar than they care to admit from a wealth standpoint. But who are the "freeloaders" really? Maybe during the RNC, you might have caught the Daily Show clip where they were mocking delegates from the states who had the worst "net contributions" (IRS revenues collected - federal cash inflows per capita), suggesting they should be "fired" from the Union as a private sector CEO might prescribe. Only 5 of the bottom 20 states are solidly blue. And only 3 of the top 15 "most profitable" states are solidly red (TX, AR, and NE - probably due to energy). So that suggest the Republicans are the true deadbeats, yet the GOP has amazingly been able to convince many poor to vote against their economic interests. Or maybe not, as GOP leaders seem to have no problem funneling federal dollars to their states, even through the hated Stimulus. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_spending_and_taxation_across_states

How about ducking taxes? It's true that many poor liberals don't pay any income or property taxes, but they do contribute in sales and payroll taxes as L said. Labor and consumption are being taxed at higher rates now (which hurts the lower classes more), yet capital is being taxed much less. And maybe you heard about that big $100M whistle-blower award given to the UBS employee who ratted on Americans trying to evade taxes in SWI. The IRS recovered $5 BILLION from the scheme. I don't think it was liberals on welfare who were implicated.

I find it funny and sad - some rich really seem to HATE the poor, even though the poor have never done anything to hurt them, either directly or indirectly. I don't get it. Is it just a political tactic to get the poor conservatives to blame/hate poor liberals and the Dem Party for their troubles? And these poor-hating GOP 1%ers often wear their Christianity on their sleeves, yet that religion explicitly teaches that the rich are not going to heaven and blessed are the poor. Mitt probably only gives so much because of LDS-imposed tithes, and he gives mostly internally, to church causes. OTOH, the poor have plenty to be upset about the rich, but many of them take a much better attitude: take only what you need, live and let live. We volunteer with a group that gives assistance to needy people (with no eligibility conditions attached, unlike welfare-to-work or whatever compromise programs). After meeting at least 50 Bay Area households over 7 years, I would say that only about 5% of them fit the GOP stereotype of the lazy, entitled, "victim" moocher (and I'm not sure how they vote). Most are tremendously appreciative for the little "handouts" they get, and they are facing hardships that we can't even fathom. I know that is not scientifically valid, but I don't think it would be too tough to find some supportive national data either.

A robust middle class contributed significantly to America's rise as the biggest economy and "greatest" nation. Many other empires have had a super-wealthy upper class supported by peasant masses, but many of those nations crumbled - often due to economic causes. A confident, socially secure, prosperous, and growing middle class is what separates us from the Third World. To be a great nation, we don't need more rich people, we don't need to empower them more, but we do need more poor people able to become middle class. If Romney doesn't get that, then he doesn't deserve to lead anyone.

--------

If i wanted to be kind to Mitt I would say that he is approaching this the only way he knows how, from a business perspective.  Those folks reliant on govt programs and that don't pay taxes, regardless of whatever value he places on them as people, what should he be spending on them in election effort?  He wants to lower taxes and cut programs, neither one speaks to their interests.  Why bother catering to them?  No fault in that logic.  The problem is when he keeps not caring WHILE president, or devalues them because they are poor/dependent.  Things like that.

But I think i understand where he was trying to come from.  Product of his upbringing so to speak.

-------

Yes I guess you're right that there's no point in Romney to court poor liberals, but he doesn't have to denigrate them instead. Like Obama is clearly not trying to woo voters in TX and UT, but he's not talking crap about them with ludicrous, inaccurate generalizations either (well not in public or on hidden cam at least).

The irony is that Romney is in fact indirectly pandering to the poor, but using social issues instead. Like we discussed, red states tend to be more dependent on federal money than blue states per capita. So his agenda of cutting programs should make those people angry. But they don't because I guess they take their federal assistance for granted, and instead care more about abortion, gun rights, illegals, gay marriage, etc. Romney fires up those folks with those issues so they forget that his economic agenda will actually hurt them. It's kind of sick actually, but I guess I can't blame Romney for their lack of awareness.  

-------

 I should add that his nominee for VP (Paul Ryan) routinely criticizes the stimulus but fails to mention that he voted for it and happily accepted the federal funds for his state. Spending money to help the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised, and the discrimanated against is bad but if it helps those that can raise you money and help you keep political office that's okay. I'm not saying the Democrats don't do the same thing but they are not the ones saying we need to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class.

The income gap in this country is growing higher and higher, especially at the top one percent. If they are reaping the rewards of this new economy, why should the poor and middle class have to make all the sacrifices. In addition, they are the ones who caused the current financial crisis for their failure (to put it kindly) to identify systemic risk in their transactions out short sighted greed. Instead of holding them responsible, we reward them and encourage their behavior in the name of free market capitalism and pursuit of the American dream. Romney can't understand this because he is the poster-boy of this flawed ideology. 

--------

Didn't he also call 'those Iranians' crazy people?  boy, he's a funny guy.  

--------

Yeah and by his definition, Israel and the US are also "crazy" then:

- Led by a religious political party (more so in Israel)
- Developed a nuclear weapons program covertly
- Engages in espionage/terrorism overseas in violation of international laws
- Launches first strikes on other nations
- Blackmails other nations with force (more so for the US)

 -----------

With this new info, one could argue that Mitt and George Romney's successes are partly due to welfare!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/19/161409916/welfare-wasnt-always-a-dirty-word-in-the-romney-family

Why do the Romneys have the right to utilize government benefits to climb the ladder and make the American Dream a reality, and now that Mitt reached the top, he wants to cut off millions of others just as deserving as his family back then, if not more. Don't the new generations have contributions to make if given a chance? I wonder what George would have told to a politician who was campaigning to cut off his assistance back then.

I know America is different now and we have new fiscal realities. But personally if I knew these were my roots, I couldn't live with myself to adopt such an conflicting platform. Funny that Mitt tries to campaign like he knows how to make something of oneself, and that his family embodies the American Dream of moving up (not to mention all the hating he does on people who have not demonstrated such success). Maybe that is a legit case to make, but then don't leave out the inconvenient details that you were only able to achieve what you did because the US government, the nanny government, the socialist activist government, the source of all our problems, the thing Grover N and the TP want to kill... gave you a handout when you needed it most - and that was the catalyst to your better life.  

Moyers interviews Sanders on Obama

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-challenging-power-changing-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+moyers+%28Moyers+%26+Company%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

Sanders brought up a good point: with Romney-Ryan showing their hand and betting the farm on the Ryan budget that aims to severely cut popular entitlements (and many conservatives have acknowlegded this liability too), why hasn't Obama come out more vociferously on the issue and slammed them for it? Does that mean that Obama would also consider cutting SocSec or Medicare if needing to compromise with the GOP in his 2nd term? Obama could win the election right now with a statement along the lines of (and I hope he busts it out before it's too late):

My fellow Americans,

You have worked hard and played by the rules your whole life. Your parents and friends had a fair shot at the American Dream and many of them achieved it, but you're trying just as hard (if not harder), and haven't seen the same results. There are many reasons for this, and most are not my fault as some would allege. America means more than just markets and profit. We want a life, not just a paycheck. I love serving the American people in my job, but trust me I can think of better things to do that working late on national problems every night. That is what Social Security and Medicare are for, to reward you for your decades of hard work, for your decades of being good Americans, so you can have the most precious thing in your old age - health and peace of mind. And for those who aren't seniors yet, you also get the peace in mind that your loved ones will be supported, and you will too when the time comes. It's a promise, and some promises must be kept - even in Washington.

Social Security is not a pie-in-the-sky dream, but a basic right of civilized, free, democratic people. Some conservatives believed and supported this over the years, but the Republican Party has never acted on it at the highest levels. It was brought to you by Democrats, during some of the most challenging economic times - times not so different from today. Great Americans like LBJ, FDR, and many others were working for you, not the fat cats. I know the modern Democratic party has sadly chosen to pander to big money too (but remember that I and my party opposed Citizens United), but in my 2nd term I hope to remind us of our roots. Big businesses and the rich, who will want for nothing in their golden years, don't want to pay their fair share of taxes so that just-as-worthy other Americans can have a comfortable retirement too. I got mine, so forget the rest of you. Pensions are getting slashed, the retirement age is getting higher, and it will all get worse under a Romney-Ryan America. Yes there is some waste and abuse associated with retirement benefits, but I would rather have an imperfect system than no system at all, where everyone is on their own. That is the Romney-Ryan vision of America my friends.

So hear me now, every hard-working American concerned about his or her future and the country they love. Your labor not only goes to feeding your loved ones, but seniors all over America whom you've never met - and they are so thankful for it. Those old folks supported others in their younger days, and now they are getting taken care of by you. We honor our commitments, that is how a society works. That is how America should work, instead of every billionaire for himself. So this is my promise to you, my fellow Americans. If you give me the great honor and privilege of a 2nd term, I will improve - not gut - Social Security to make it viable for at least 75 years, so that you can be 100% assured to have it when the time comes. You did your part, now your leaders must do theirs. Make no mistake we should and will cut the deficit smartly, but not at your expense. I won't rob the Social Security trust to give tax breaks to the super-rich, as Romney-Ryan and many in the GOP Caucus plan to. That is a BETRAYAL. I do not, and Democrats do not, punish people for doing the right thing. So vote with your conscience, and let's do the right thing together. Thank you and God bless.

Hey Barack - I will write your speeches for $20/hour plus US gov't retirement (of course)!

--------

1 - Of course Obama will consider cutting Social Security and Medicare to compromise with the GOP. He's already proposed that as part of his "grand bargain" with Boehner and Cantor in summer 2011. This is the hilarity of all those asshat DC centrist column-writers who claim to want a centrist politician to come to a compromise to cut SS and Medicare in exchange for tax hikes: that politician exists, he's currently President, and they're still looking.

2 - Campaign finance realities prevent Obama from echoing FDR's "I'm hostile to the rich, they hate me, and I welcome their hatred." If you're mean to the rich they don't give your campaign money, and you don't get elected. Campaign finance really is the root of all our political evils.

--------

Agreed, thanks J. I was more suggesting that Obama hasn't fully capitalized on the SocSec issue, even if the data suggest he won't be the ideal protector of that program. So for the GOP to make their stand (for a campaign that is nearly devoid of substance, I'll give them credit for being this ballsy), and Obama not exploit it, is inexplicable to me. Maybe he's saving it for the debates, but I think it will work better on the trail or even in TV ads. Even if Obama may cut entitlements later, he probably will do less damage than Romney-Ryan. So for the binary choice (ignoring the possibility of voting boycott for now), Obama is the SocSec champion as far as many people are concerned. Plus the revenues gained from the grand bargain may go to some other social good. So I'm just saying he should run with that, and it will probably lead to a win for him considering the current campaign environment.

From FDR's famous "welcome their hatred" speech: about 3/4 of Republicans voted for the SocSec act in 1935. But in the 1936 campaign, the GOP leaders in Congress tried to use that issue (along with the passage of unemployment insurance, anti-monopoly reforms, Glass-Steagall, etc.) to show that FDR was an anti-business pinko. It didn't work then, and shouldn't work now even if Obama is clearly not FDR.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3307

Middle East protests over video

What do you think of the Muhammad video causing an uproar? I know we've discussed this issue after the South Park episode and the Danish cartoons. I guess some Westerners can't get enough of provoking crazy Muslims, and some Muslims can't stop themselves from overreacting to a few Western a-holes.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-rejects-white-house-request-pull-mohammad-film-015300781--sector.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/search?q=muhammad+cartoons

Apparently Google/YouTube refuses to censor it unless it violates local laws. I find it interesting, because when copyrighted material appears on YouTube, and Viacom, HBO, or other big corporate entities protest (or threaten to sue), of course Google blocks the video. But now when "free speech" is causing violence and anti-Americanism, then they tolerate it and even defend it. I know it's part of their terms of use, company vision, and all. Money over lives again I guess.

I am not a fan of censorship, but I find it so stupid when people produce hate or slander speech designed just to offend others. It's not political, educational, or meant to sway opinions - it's just to provoke irrational people who are already overly-sensitive about their religion. And they don't care about the blowback to innocents (in fact they may have even anticipated this outcome and were apparently OK with it). Do I approve of the violent protests? Of course not, and you'd think that someone in those nations would stand up and remind the protesters that most Americans do not disrespect Islam, and burning a KFC won't make it better. In fact those retaliations make Muslims look even worse to the world, which sullies the reputation of their prophet whom they claim to defend.

We don't celebrate free speech if we use that freedom to disseminate the lowest, most vile, most worthless forms of speech. So when people don't treat their freedoms responsibly, we could consider taking them away (as we do with bad drivers, criminals, etc.).

And of course Romney has to put his foot in his mouth yet again over this. While Stevens' corpse was still warm he just had to take a cheap shot at Obama. No one on the right but the talk radio jerks are supporting Romney on this, so you know he went too far. Everything Obama does hurts America's standing abroad apparently. No one is "siding" with the protesters or condoning the killing of Americans who had nothing to do with the video. Shut the F up you moron. I wouldn't cry over taking away Romney's free speech rights. We should denounce the makers of that video, as well as those who committed violence in response to it. Romney and the Reps think that Obama just wants to take every opportunity possible to make America look weaker and "embolden" our enemies. For the first time in decades, the Dems are slightly stronger than the GOP in terms of voter perceptions on defense and foreign policy, so Romney is really grasping at straws to try to level the game. He claims that he will never apologize for America. Well Reagan apologized for Japanese internment, LBJ apologized for Vietnam, and W Bush apologized for Abu Ghraib and slavery (I guess better late than never). It's not just weak appeasers who apologize. Humble people who are in touch with REALITY apologize when it's warranted. Arrogant, delusional pricks don't.

--------

True (so far), but what is the value/point of such an image (apart from raunchy humor)? :) Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. And by restraining ourselves from doing stupid (but legal) stuff, does that really make our lives worse? In fact it often makes us better. We could exercise "free speech" and tell off our boss, hit on hot girls (with unstable muscular BFs), and act offensively in public, but probably we will suffer for it. That is why we SELF-CENSOR about 60% of our speech (or 10% if you're lucky enough to be a comedian - these aren't official stats, just for argument's sake). But when we don't directly suffer for our speech (and others do), well that is the classic moral hazard, negative externalities problem. And we all know that causes dysfunction and makes some extremists embrace even riskier speech. So if only the perpetrators suffer, then by all means make speech universally free. But the perpetrators are cowards who hide behind their money, status, insanity, or human shields.

So most of us can handle our speech responsibilities, but for the few degenerates who don't have the ability to self-censor, how does society step in? There are some laws, like those banning hate speech. Does this video qualify? It's debatable. Hate speech laws are even stronger in Germany, and I don't think many Germans are complaining that they feel so restricted. And I guess the law may not even be necessary for most Germans because they don't see any value in denying the Holocaust or other crap.

Below are some comments from a Lebanese friend of mine who has seen a lot of stuff in the Middle East. He makes a very good point: now with instant viral info dissemination, what about speech that directly endangers the interests and people of the US (like when Ahmadinejad blurts out stupid stuff about Israel, it hurts Iranians)? Freedoms are supposed to make us stronger, not hurt us right? If people are exercising their freedoms too selfishly and detrimentally, then how do we deal with that? Again, the violent retaliations are clearly the bigger crime here. But if you knowingly provoke someone into committing a crime (and from history and common sense you know there is a high probability of them doing so), I think you bear some responsibility there. I'm fairly sure there are laws about that stuff. We should "fix" violent, fundamentalist Islam too, but for now the "easier" fix is censoring some rare, especially dangerous hate speech before it does harm.

The Arab Spring is sputtering out (and the most critical nations are still under tyrants, apart from Egypt). People living under dictators for decades are traumatized and unsure what to do now. Their economies are broken. There is a battle for the hearts and minds between Islamists, former regime elements, and democratic reformists. Islamists thrive at filling the chaotic vacuum, especially fueled by anti-Western sentiment to exploit as a scapegoat. When Westerners pull this stuff, it just makes it easier for the Islamists to win. The people who made that video are supposedly anti-Islam, yet their actions make the Islamists politically and socially stronger in those affected nations. What folly. Meanwhile, the US is trying to help rebuild and promote good governance over there at some risk (taking off my cynic hat for a moment). It's hard, delicate, slow work. Now all their efforts since 2011 are set back a lot, if not ruined. All so a few morons can exercise "free speech"? Unacceptable. There's a lot more going on here, but the ignorants and ideologues don't see beyond their narrow agendas (not calling anyone here ignorant of course).

-----

I find it ironic that the man behind it is an Egyptian American who just sent his home country back into chaos.

I thought Google and YouTube do not tolerate hate speech, and I would think this video falls under that. 

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity)."

"Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/google-wont-rethink-anti-islam-videos-status.html

"Google said it had already determined that the video did not violate its terms of service regarding hate speech, because it was against the Muslim religion but not Muslim people."

So the video was not against a group of people, but against the religion, which happens to have many groups of people following? Nice lawyering work. Regardless, I don't think Google and YouTube censoring or not censoring the video at this point will do anything, and blocking it from countries as the violence spreads is stupid, the people are and will still be able to view the video.I think it is time the government steps in and tries to find a way to punish the parties involved with making the video because it is hurting its foreign policy. 

I also assumed this would be contained in those countries that are not as well off. I wanted to rank muslim countries by GDP and see if the violence correlates with low GDP, but there are riots in richer nations too.
 
--------

I won't try to defend the onion since it is a known satire publication  but that picture is EXTREMELY graphic.  Has anyone seen the video in quesiton?  It is comically stupid.  I had a hard time understanding where the offense came from.  Did the middle east riot when indiana jones came out and made the middle east look bad?

Do you really think these riots have ANYTHING to do with this video?  I mean, at all.  The video is a scapegoat at best.  These are organized demonstrations.  Thousands of people.  The number of people showing up to these rallies and the demographic makes it near impossible for a significant number of them to even have seen the video let alone translated from English to their native language.  There is some central authority figure fomenting the masses.  Plain and simple.  

You could argue "why would he make the video, why don't we all go and turn off the internal filters" but we do not self censor out of fear for our lives.  We self censor to avoid social awkwardness, potential relationship damage, etc.  And the real reason I believe you argue to stop the film (or cartoon or fill in the blank) is because it is so simple to do so.  Would we make those arguments if people rioted and killed every time someone said the word Muhammad regardless of context?  Would you then suggest that we should avoid using it at all?  Why is it ok to censor something that is easier to avoid?  It isn't hard to say "the prophet" or whatever instead of Muhammad, is it still ok?  It feels a little like blaming the rape victim.  What was she wearing?  What was she doing alone at night in that area?  All of those things are valid in the sense they could have helped avoid the final outcome, but it is still completely and totally NOT the victims fault. 

--------

I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.

Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.

My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back. 

In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.

--------

I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.

Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.

My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back. 

In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.

--------

The victim in my analogy was the exercise of free speech.  Because the speech was unpopular and easy to avoid it is their fault.  No, it isn't.  And you say yourself that the riots became about something else and that and are barely hanging on to order.  When the straw breaks the camels back how do you blame the straw?  Why is it ok to go 1984 on free speech when it is a small loss or it is easy.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Small compromises all the way to the police state.  I don't understand why your slippery slope arguments don't go for both sides.

Intelligence, as reported in the media, shows the deaths of the Benghazi riots were caused either by pre-planned units (in which case the video is completely unrelated) or opportunistic based on the riots.  Now i'm not saying riots are good but they are a whole different thing than killing.  And it appears, from what we know from the media reporting, that the deaths are NOT a direct result of the video but either an opportunistic response or a pre-planned attack.  

And do you honestly believe that if this video was never made nothing else would exist in the world to set these people off?  I mean seriously, watch the video.  There are things spoken on fox news regularly that are as offensive.  Additionally the anger is based on an incorrect premise that the US is backing the video in some way.  I just really really struggle to  blame the film for this.  

Back to your main point, where do we draw the line on free speech.  We will always struggle.  Fact of life.  But just because something is easy to avoid doesn't mean one SHOULD avoid it.  Should's are important and I try to be careful when discussing them.  And I haven't heard from you (or anyone) a reason that someone SHOULD limit their free speech because of an irrational and likely unrelated response.  If the response was rational, if it could  be predicted, there might be an argument.  But what about all the other anti-Mohammad material in between this video and 5 years ago?  What about the hateful videos in response to the Benghazi killings?  How many died from southpark?  There just isn't a causal link that one can draw.  

--------

Thx for your thoughts, and I can't find fault in anything you wrote. In a perfect world I wish we could all say whatever we wanted, and the worst that could happen is a few feelings hurt. There are forces out of our control that weakened the camel's back, but we actually control the straw. So yes, I do blame the straw because it is preventable. We can't turn back time and make these nations more functional. Maybe if we showed restraint here, another straw would have come along and broke it eventually, but at least by refraining this time, we bought the camel more time to hopefully heal. Wow I really milked that analogy to death.

I don't think censoring the video would ultimately lead to a police state, but I get your point. Remember that a lot more censorship takes place behind the scenes and society generally condones it (all the problems with for-profit news, special interests dictating what politicians say, PATRIOT Act stuff, etc.). I think we should fight those battles first as bigger challenges to democracy and freedom. The video arguably violates Google's terms of service as hate speech, so they have somewhat of a case to pull it. But maybe they figure if they relent now, the ACLU and free speech camp will raise even more hell (and those people are actually tied to customers than Google cares about, whereas angry poor Muslims don't buy ads with them).

Elements of violent Islam have infiltrated Arab Spring nations (again, Jihadists thrive in a power vacuum and chaos). To what extent I don't know. Maybe they were planning a hit on the US staff in Benghazi for a while. It's possible that they would have tried irrespective of the video. But now the video gave them cover, so they can say they're not the bad guys, the infidels are. And now maybe the locals tend to sympathize with them, while without the video they would have rejected their violent acts. You are right that other things may set the people off, and maybe they deserve to be mad given their situations. There could be riots, but at least they wouldn't be so anti-American. All those riots make the US more fearful and hostile to Muslims too, which erodes relations and leads to a downward spiral (revenge actions we may take in response to the US dead could lead to escalation). I wish Obama would make a statement saying that America rejects the video and respects the practitioners of Islam, but also condemns violence against Americans and the killers should be punished. There are wackos on both sides who love this and want a clash of cultures, but they do not represent the vast majority who just want to live in peace. They are the real enemy for the rest of us. I guess he could be concerned that the GOP would label him as a weak appeaser, when they want him to settle the score.

It's true that the right wing media say truly racist, prejudiced, anti-Islamic things almost every day. And mostly that goes unnoticed in Muslim nations - maybe either due to unfamiliarity or dismissal of the sources, or they're just used to it by now. But apart from free speech activities, Muslims have rioted after they learned US personnel (1) tortured-humiliated people at Abu Ghraib, (2) desecrated or did something bad to the Korans at Gitmo and elsewhere, (3) urinated on dead insurgents, (4) killed civilians in Pakistan, and other stuff. They don't take to the streets because they're bored - we've given them plenty of fodder over the years.

Yes I suppose censorship is a slippery slope. It's a matter of tolerance. Some feel we need to make a stand now, others are OK with letting their rights take a back seat to other priorities in this case. There's no way to know which path leads to a better net outcome, and better outcome for whom? You are right though, I should watch how I use the world should. I don't mean to be presumptuous. But my goal is to minimize suffering here. I am OK to sacrifice the rights of a few (who don't seem to be wielding those rights very responsibly) in order to preserve life and diplomacy for many. I don't mean I would throw them in the slammer, but if there has to be a victim, I guess I would choose their rights. But it's not my call, just an opinion. You would probably prefer to preserve their rights at the risk of some potential international hostility (and the size of the risk being unknown, but possibly nil as you argue). Though there is a track record of Muslim violence directly in response to certain Western "insults" to Islam, so it's not inconceivable. Yes not every offensive-to-Islam event has caused violence, but enough high-profile cases have occurred to warrant some belief in a causal relationship. But you may disagree, and it's hard to prove either way.