This is a very clear picture of the state of employment.

While this indicator did indeed turn up (making a higher low in December 2009), the indicator has done little but flatline since April 2010, a full 6 months... it has to rise by another 500,000 just to get to the August 2003 low.

Note that layoffs and discharges did revert to the mean plus an overshoot which should be expected. The number of quits is nowhere near its trendline.

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: What does the "Take this Job and Shove-It Indicator" say about the Economy?

Stefanie wrote:
I'm with you, regarding Lieberman.

However, I don't blame for-profit companies for distancing themselves from WikiLeaks... If they don't want to risk controversy, it's their right... companies trying to make money don't need bad press, and being associated with WikiLeaks right now brings too much heat.

You're right in a sense - Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon are victims here.

The reason continuing to process payments for Wikileaks brings heat is because Lieberman brought heat. He raised this issue publicly and promoted the idea that the public ought to insist that companies distance themselves from Wikileaks. He basically told the press to go find companies that are doing this and ask them why and quote them on it. The media complied - they even went after companies that have nothing to do with Wikileaks without checking their facts. These companies faced reprisals, real market consequences stemming from bad press, if they did not comply with Lieberman's "request."

As has been raised in many places, the credit card companies are still processing payments for the KKK. No one seems to care about that, in spite of the number of times that the issue has been raised, because the people raising the issue are not powerful enough that the media telegraphs their opinions.

The reason Lieberman's opinions matter is because he is a United States Senator.

So there you have it. Lieberman is using the power of his public office to threaten businesses that refuse to comply with his demand to distance themselves from an organization that, like it or not, probably hasn't broken the law and which is engaged in actions that are probably protected by the Constitution.

(And to make matters worse, these companies were also hit with DDOS attacks!)

The power of the United States Senate is not supposed to be used in this way. The power of the Senate is supposed to be exercised through due process of law. So the fact that this is happening this way is a real problem - this was a significant abuse of power.

However, the only way that we can combat this public perception problem is to present another side to the coin. To make it clear that we don't think that this is how business ought to be done in America, and that we support companies that have the spine to refuse to comply with requests like this, which should never have been made in the first place.

Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon had a choice. They chose wrong. You cannot simultaneously claim that its reasonable for people to be upset with these companies for doing business with Wikileaks but its not reasonable for people to be upset with these companies for refusing to do business with Wikileaks.

If we don't push back against these companies no one will be able to host anything controversial on the Internet in the future.

RE: Lieberman undeterred

Yesterday Lieberman stated that companies who complied with his extra legal "request" to block Wikileaks are:

“doing the right thing as good corporate citizens.”

These companies are helping Lieberman undermine the rule of law.

"We received a phone call from a friend who is a senior member of the party. We agreed to shut down your website. You understand?"

Why have a legal system at all Joe? Why have democratically elected politicians? Why don't you and your corporate buddies just get together and decide what you want the law to be. It almost works that way now, doesn't it?

Why not ask Blackwater to be a "good corporate citizen" and detain everyone associated with Wikileaks. Who needs trials? Blackwater can just do its corporate duty and hold them indefinitely without trial as "enemy combatants." Thats already on the table, isn't it? Senior members of the Republican party seriously suggested it, didn't they? Whats the hold up? Aren't you serious about protecting this country's national security? I mean, who gives a fuck about democracy? Clearly you don't!

Lieberman undeterred

I've changed by profile picture to support EFF's anti-censorship campaign, and I have donated $100 to their cause. This is a protest and I urge you to participate. We are protesting the use of political pressure by American politicians to shut down a website.

If you believe in due process of law and the right to freedom of expression you should join us in taking a stand. It is important that we take a stand right now.

It doesn't matter whether or not you support what Wikileaks is doing. If I were handed such a rich trove of private information I might have moral qualms about dumping the whole thing on the Internet. That is totally irrelevant.

In the United States of America we are a country of laws. If Wikileaks has violated a law than the appropriate way to respond to that is through the use of the legal system. In fact, like it or not, it is most likely the case that Wikileaks has not violated the law. Therefore, senior politicians in this country have taken it upon themselves to use their personal influence to shut the website down, and a number of corporations, large and small, have obliged them.

In a free country with a strong legal system and a tradition of upholding the right to freedom of speech, this sort of thing is not acceptable. Life, liberty, and property should only be taken away through due process of law and not simply because some powerful people desire it and present thin arguments in favor of it.

As The Internet Society recently stated in their newsletter:

[Wikileaks] must be subject to the same laws and policies of availability as all Internet sites. Free expression should not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet.

Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence...

Anger about these events runs deep. Right now, many of the companies who assisted in cutting off Wikileaks have been subjected to distributed denial of service attacks. While I share the anger of those who are launching these attacks, I cannot condon... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

"This was gonna happen sooner or later," Barlow says.  "I actually thought it might happen before now, but this seems to be the opening salvo in what is going to be a protracted struggle."

"EFF takes the position that Wikileaks, having acquired the information, has the right to disseminate it, and nobody has the right to shut them or anyone else down online."

It's a fairly robust position of support that few other organizations have taken publicly...in part, Barlow admits, due to the complicated nature of the issues, the Wikileaks organization, and co-founder Assange.  However, keeping with the battlefield metaphor, he says sometimes you choose the fight, and sometimes it chooses you.

"I can't say that Mr. Assange makes the absolutely perfect poster child, especially given these allegations in Sweden, and I also think that some of the things that were released are troublesome," admits Barlow.  "But you take the battle that you've got."

I think maybe riot is a better description than war for what is going on right now.

WAR

Oh wow, its so nice to read someone who gets it!

Many advocates of reform don't seem to realize that restrictions on corporate political expenditures have applied, and, pursuant to the proposed constitutional amendment would apply to their favorite not for profit advocacy groups, as well as "big bad" business corporations...

The insistence that "corporations aren't people" is employed selectively: The 4th and 5th amendments explicitly apply to "people" and "persons," but I have yet to hear any liberal advocate of campaign finance reform argue that the government may subject corporations to unreasonable searches and seizures or prosecutions devoid of due process...

The Foolishness of Campaign Finance Reformers - Wendy Kaminer - National - The Atlantic

Days after an announcement that a strain of bacteria can apparently use arsenic in place of phosphorous to build its DNA and other biomolecules — an ability unknown in any other organism — some scientists are questioning the finding and taking issue with how it was communicated to non-specialists.

NASA's Microbe announcement gets toxic response : Nature News

"Apple doesn't understand that talking to businesses about IT-related things is not the same as doing it with consumers," said John Welch, IT director at the Zimmerman Agency, a digital marketing and PR firm. "With consumers, when they don't hear anything and all the sudden -- ta da! -- they get a new iPhone, that's great. For us IT guys, that's a nightmare. We hate that."

Steve Jobs said as much in response to an irate Xserve customer: "Hardly anyone was buying them."

People aren't buying them because you don't know how to serve business customers, and in pulling the plug this way you just sent a clear message that enterprises should avoid trying to go down this road with you in the future.

In killing Xserve, Apple spooks enterprise customers - Dec. 7, 2010

Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the Internet of a website made infamous through international press coverage and political intrigue.

The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and utility of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically illustrates that those principles are currently at risk...

Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence, and appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that acted maliciously to take it off the air.

Emphasis mine.

ISOC Monthly Newsletter - The Internet Society on the Wikileaks issue

In other words, this is very sensitive stuff because it gets into the America's first amendment.

But if you go from the initial crime, Private Manning charged with the crime of stealing these classified documents, he gives them to WIKILEAKS, I certainly believe that that's a -- WIKILEAKS has violated the Espionage Act. But then what about the news organizations including The Times that accepted it and distributed it? I know they say they deleted some of it, but I'm not here to make a final judgment on that. But to me New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship. And whether they've committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the justice department. And, again, why do you prosecute crimes? Because if you don't, well, first you do because that's what our system of justice requires. Second, if you don't prosecute people who commit crimes, others are going to do it soon and again. And I'm afraid that's what's going to happen here.

Leiberman: DOJ should investigate NYT for Espionage