By this logic, Assange is not subject to US laws, anyway.

Maybe the number of leaks is proportional to the amount of shenanigans being played by the government?

That doesn't actually make sense...

Word choice is intentionally belligerent. How hard did they have to work to write this paragraph without using the word "asylum."

No. He's been granted asylum.

US government view. The US is a nation of citizens. We do not have a singular view.

The subtext feels almost celebratory.

Do we call whistleblowers thieves?

Different question: can a US citizen steal information from the US government? It feels like a reversal of the modus operandi of our legal system and its underpinning documents.

Not a real thing, see: http://e360.yale.edu/features/the_myth_of_clean_coal http://www.livescience.com/56474-clean-coal-presidential-debates.html http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/coal/nijhuis-text http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a4947/4339171/

But, they're wrong. And the fact the reporter did not include the information that this is factually inaccurate is irresponsible.

No, that's 34%.

Not according to your own graph...

For the record, that doesn't mean that men can walk into women's restrooms or vice-versa. The argument that it does emerges from a misunderstanding of what gender constitutes.

Apparently, editorial ability is not valued. Which is sad, since good editorship in academic writing seems to be flagging.

Or wouldn't it?!?!

Not a word. - ed.

Except that studies of overall happiness and satisfaction with life consistently show that the happiest people on earth live in Democratic Socialist countries...

Even the quoted portions of the story can't be read this way. The focus of the story is clearly on the joy gleaned from being generous. In a way diametrically opposed to the assertions of socialist overtones made in this piece, the story focuses not on the other fish or their happiness but on the rainbow fish and its happiness. The story is not about the collective but the individual.

This phrasing steals the rainbow fish's agency. The rainbow fish gave it's scales away, they weren't taken.

I thought it was a "rainbow fish" and "his scales were every shade of blue and green and purple, with sparkling silver scales among them."

How could giving away such scales make everybody look exactly the same?

Not one single attack by Sanders is quoted in this piece. The closest it comes is vague reference to Sanders pointing out the differences between he and Clinton on fracking and Wall Street. That's not an attack, it's a matter of record.

I think the NYT meant "caused by a heated New York primary campaign." It's not like they won't both play hard.

We'll get to Trump or Cruz or whoever the Republicans end up with (Sanders crushes all of them anyway), but for now there's a Democratic nominee to choose, in case they've forgotten. This is what's called a "primary." If the Clinton campaign doesn't want to compete in one, it can drop out.

The left will never stop being "aggravated against her." Though, "singularly disgusted by one of the biggest sell-out politicians in American history" would be more accurate phraseology.

"Please clap."

A nugget of insight amid this barren wasteland.

Flawed reasoning. Young people and independents AREN'T Democrats. It's not going to be about endorsements. It's going to be about what Clinton will promise to do for us. Think of it as a labor negotiation.

We'd rather vote for Jill Stein. And we don't believe the myth of the thrown away vote. The establishment has lost that argument by delivering us a nothing for decades. We don't like them because even when they had both houses of Congress and the Executive they still got almost nothing done.

She hasn't been on course for a week and a half now.

Nice try, but that had nothing to do with it.

No dice. The Clinton camp can sleep in the bed their candidate made.

*over eager. There I fixed that for you.

You don't really need a rationale when your campaign is doing well enough to win, regardless. To be clear, New York will probably decide the race. But, if Sanders wins it will no matter what the margin, while Clinton will need to win convincingly to really shut down the Sanders campaign.

What's amazing is how many elitist conservatives are coming out to say, in the most high-brow terms possible, that Brooks is spot on and they agree with every word. It's incredible how out of touch they are. Trump supporters will only be more aroused to back him after seeing this.

Exactly.

But, not now? Why not talk to some of them? Why not try to write something the way they understand the world? From what I have observed, Trump supporters do not so much revile education as the trappings of education. They despise the uppityness of educated elites. This piece drips with the language of elitism.

At least he got this part right. The only problem is that legitimization can take the form of opposition. The news legitimized him, fostered the possibility of respect growing around him, by providing an outlet for his vile rhetoric to reach people. He's too good for ratings to pass up, but in covering his every malicious spewing they created this monster.

It's been tried. It doesn't work. His supporters feed off his forcefulness, his brinkmanship, his unrelenting aggression. While we can't become demagogues ourselves, we are going to have to confront him and them with a similar ferocity. "Decency, graciousness, patience and humility" will get us nowhere.

Slow day.

"Plotting." Really, plotting? Plotting suggests something secretive, but you're reporting on the group's public statement of their plans.

"Radical groups." A moron wrote this.

Comma attack!

Ed.

That meta moment when you comment in hypothes.is on a comment in Disqus about internet commentary systems in which you use hypothes.is as an example of evolving comment systems.

What is a "publiser"?