Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

I say "you cannot claim it is there". I say nothing at all about claiming "it is not there". Then you respond with something about me claiming "it is not there". This sounds an awful lot like cognitive dissonance ( http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1... )

I would shrug it off as a strange fluke but this is the second response I have gotten with the same illiterate analysis. Is it a language barrier thing? Is it that you haven't ever read a text with precise formulations? Is it that you need this article to be true to justify your views?

Bingo, sir.

https://xkcd.com/221/
http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-...

The citizens are quite available, the companies have to quit being picky.

One of America's most beloved comic strips features such an engineer that illustrates the problem perfectly:

There are legions of self-entitled "engineers" so bad any employer will be better off setting a pile of money on fire than hiring.

America is built on the idea that it doesn't matter who your parents are if you have the talent.

The tech companies are saying the same thing with H-1B's: They need talent, not sacks of meat waxing nostalgic about their family tree.

Ok kids, if you want to see how a peabrain concedes that he has no argument, scroll up and read serviscope's post a couple of times until you become familiar with the signs. The very short version is a lot of huffing and puffing, and absolutely no substance.

First, he starts with "Nuh uh", then he twists my words into a pretzel, then he continues to insist on something that everyone can plainly see is false. Then it gets really good: he links to a blogger force-fitting "facts", some real and some false, through a set of vague checkboxes, none of which have anything to do with actual fascism, and most of which could be fit to just about anyone famous.

And then, Trump is literally Hitler why? Because he is directing the publication of crimes weekly. WEEKLY, the bastard! I mean that is straight out of Mein Kampf. Everyone knows that free countries publish their crime stats quarterly.

And to top it off, he repeats his denial of the obvious and apparent fascism that we all watched on TV and youtube, because that was "other things that other people did". (See notes on fascism below)

His conclusion is that no rational being can disagree with him. Now, that just seems like a typical dehumanizing tactic - it is a lot easier to punch a guy on the street if he isn't human, or if you have defined him as evil.

Scott Adams has something to say about this topic too. I think it is well worth the read.

-----

Apparently to a peabrain, fascism is something that one man does, and not a political movement. After all, the big problem in Italy was Benito himself, and not the hordes of violent thugs, or "Fascist Party" that chose him as their leader.

If any reader has any doubt about what we are seeing in this country these days, please go look up fascism in your favorite encyclopedia and compare notes. Here is one at random: "Fascists view World War I as having made liberal democracy obsolete". Skipping the chronology, who considers democracy obsolete? In other words, who has been rioting and calling to throw out an election they didn't win?

Agreed. I'm fighting^H^H^H^H working with a web designer on this point right now.

"Responsive" doesn't mean take a design and make it work on all devices, it means change the design so it is optimal on (ideally) all devices.

They have an eye for design, I'm sure.

Listen, if you're going to lie at least make up a believable number. Studies have shown people believe made up numbers ending in 1 and 7 more than the other eight numbers.

So, if you had said you found 17 medline articles, I might have believed you.

Link to study for confirmation:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2008-...

The thing about climate "facts" specifically is that there is a culture where legitimate research contradicting a narrative results in lost jobs while illegitimate research reinforcing the narrative is allowed to persist. You yourself most likely are unqualified to hold an opinion on the matter (something which predicates speaking on it.)

Anyone else remember this (yes, I'm that old): http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-01-31

The safest thing to do is give him a phone with no sim card, set the shortcut for twitter to open notepad, and let him tweet til his heart is content in that local text file.

Wouldn't it be safer to give him an etch-a-sketch?

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-...

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-...

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-...

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-...

cott Adams correctly predicted Trump would become president

Which proves he is about as accurate as a coin flip.

The reason people think he has gone crazy is stuff like this:

"Let me say this again, so you know Iâ(TM)m not kidding. Based on what I know about the human body, and the way our thoughts regulate our hormones, the Democratic National Convention is probably lowering testosterone levels all over the country."

I like your ideas, and I'd like to see them spread... you might take some notes from this rather successful promoter:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

http://dilbert.com/strip/2003-...

They should read Scott Adams writings about cognitive dissonance and the art of persuasion. This one for example: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

Agreed for the moment... in part.

Scott Adams recently blogged about what I'd noticed, a general calming down of the protesting which suggests a growing acceptance with the new reality: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

There is still much anger to be had on the 'progressive' side today, few realize the slump they are in or how they can get out of it.

Even if they are successful at getting a few electors to vote for someone else (the GOP pledged ones will never vote for Hillary), it would still fall to the House for selection... which will still elect Trump or someone even more GOP that the 'progressives' wouldn't want.

Now what?

They do not have the seats in the House or Senate to do much of anything, doubly so after Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for everything but SCOTUS nominees. It'd be a rotten shame if the GOP used the same rules when... Ted Cruz gets the nomination for an open seat.

Look to 2018? Good luck with that. The Dems have more seats to defend and the GOP is likely to retain the House.

Look to 2020? Ok, who are you going to run? Thanks to Obama's shrinking coat tails starting in 2010, much of the back bench of the Dems has been decimated.

Hillary isn't going to run again, Sanders won't either. Warren would be deemed to old and too fringe. The only hope is trying to find someone like Obama who has no real experience (or history) to run against, and can motivate people.

Whether they like it or not, the 'progressives' have been routed to the point of utter demotivation & depression.

All they have is rioting in the streets (which takes more time & energy than they have left) or posting their sob stories online.

I'm no Trump fan, but had I know how crabby the progressives were going to be... I might just have campaigned & voted for him.

...Dilbert quote.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-...

Four years ago, I wrote a sort-of tongue-in-cheek story for Kuro5hin.org (RIP) titled "Humanity's Second-Best Hope" [1]. I pointed out that the Democratic president had failed to deliver on the Change he had promised, and shared my faint hope that maybe Mitt Romney was a "political gladiator" who'd flip on the plutocracy once he was elected.

[1] http://www.TaxiWars.org/humanitys-second-best-hope/

Alas, Mitt Romney was no gladiator.

At some point in this election cycle, I noticed dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams' blog. On August 13, 2015 Scott had a post about Donald Trump titled "Clown Genius" [2]:

Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.

The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?

Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. ...

[2] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

For the entire election cycle, the political media promoted Hillary Clinton as the presidential heir-apparent, as if she was The Chosen One. Usually the plutocracy runs a Chosen candidate against a backup - someone who, even if fickle voters decided to not select the Chosen candidate, would still be useful to them.

Donald Trump was not a backup candidate. He was give free coverage during the primaries because he was considered a clown-candidate that wouldn't be taken seriously, it was an easy story, and because it was thought that The Chosen One could beat him. This was covered in one of the Wikileaks emails...

Donald Trump is the Gladiator that Mitt Romney was not. I'm optimistic.

More recently, Scott Adams has pointed out that the people who are most freaked out by The Donald's victory are those who didn't see it coming - who believed the echo chambers' pronouncements that Hillary Clinton had basically won the election before a single vote had been cast. In one of the recent New York Times articles, Mr. Trump said that he "wants to do a good job". It's a huge undertaking to fill these 4000 positions - what matters most is not the individual appointees, but the guidance provided from the elected candidate at the top.

Scott Adams predicted this in May.

Predicted that Trumps real position on climate change was actually "I don't know because I haven't looked into it," and that once he did, if he decided it was a problem, he'd be the only person who could convince the Republican base that it was a problem and that something needed to be done. That no Democrat ever could, but Trump could carry the Republicans right along because they see him as one of them, and very credible.

Mr. Adams is a very observant wingnut.

Mmm, I disagree, to be honest, for several reasons. Trump's made it pretty clear that he doesn't consider himself a Republican - even though the two crowds are rather similar in many of their beliefs, religious conservatives and Trump's crowd don't really see each other as one group. If Trump starts to walk back on too many of his promises, then he'll be branded a complete outsider - upon which they might pay him lip service, but they're not going to jump on board with any of his ideas for the long term.

Secondly, many traditional republicans are extreeeeeeemley religious, and base almost all of their stances on whatever their church says. These people aren't against climate change because they disagree with the model, they're against it because of "faith", and faith by definition is not based on logic or rationality. Attempting to reason with someone like this won't get you anywhere because they're not in that arena to begin with, so unless Trump dons the robes, they're simply going to ignore whatever he says unless they think their chance of reelection is in danger. Given the 96% reelection rate this year among congressional officials, people clearly don't feel all that disenfranchised for the establishment that they keep voting for, year after year after year.

I'll be curious to what Scott Adams says as time passes. I think the man got lucky on chance, but we'll see whether his observations hold true or not.

Scott Adams predicted this in May.

Predicted that Trumps real position on climate change was actually "I don't know because I haven't looked into it," and that once he did, if he decided it was a problem, he'd be the only person who could convince the Republican base that it was a problem and that something needed to be done. That no Democrat ever could, but Trump could carry the Republicans right along because they see him as one of them, and very credible.

Mr. Adams is a very observant wingnut.

For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.

We never actually saw evidence that Scott was shadowbanned. He said that some of his readers had claimed that his stories weren't on their twitter feeds. He issued a challenge to the CEO of Twitter to respond within three days. No response was reported, and Scott didn't explain the resolution. I personally continued to see Scott's tweets on my twitter feed just fine throughout that time.

I think a more likely explanation is that Scott was never shadowbanned, and that some of his followers didn't notice a tweet from him or it got buried under a load of other things. It matched their cognitive bias about twitter following a shadowban agenda against right wing folks, and it matched Scott's cognitive bias about him being important, and so he went ahead and "asked the question" (i.e. "I'm not saying I've been shadowbanned, I'm just asking the question"). And that naturally laid the cognitive bias for it to evolve into a statement of fact.

...shadowbanned for having insightful views on the election.

That's a pretty dishonest misrepresentation. Scott says he was probably shadowbanned because he asked people to tweet him examples of Clinton supporters being violent. (Indeed Scott has had insightful views on the election both before his alleged shadowbanning, and after, so I don't know how anyone could think he was banned because he had those views.)

Lemmings. I, by default, trust nothing. Not a way to live really but is imposed on us. So sad...

This election is the first time in my life I've taken the trouble to dig down past the news reporting into the facts that were reported.

...and it's fascinating. From a psychology point of view, if you can figure out the forces and rationalizations involved it's an interesting exercise in crowd manipulation and competition for readership.

This almost looks orchestrated.

Right now we're seeing the first rumblings of a landslide change in the way news is reported. We're starting by building up a problem in the minds of the readership, being "fake news sites". (Note that it's fake *sites*, not fake *stories*.)

This will go on for awhile until most of the readership simply accepts that "fake news sites" is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Then we'll see sites rolling out their "fixes" to the problems.

Google is pulling ad revenue from sites deemed to be "fake news", under the rule that they are not "advertiser friendly". Expect many ambiguous rules and discretionary enforcement to be implemented. For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.

The difference is between *what* gets reported, versus the *style* of reporting. Sites can be left-leaning or right-leaning, but the text shouldn't be obviously dismissive, judgemental, opinionated drivel. Readers shouldn't be told what to think - they should make up their own minds.

So look to the future, where *sites* (not articles) can't be found in search engines, can't get ad revenue, and have to live in the shadows,

Oh, and here's a list of famous fake news articles published by the MSM in recent years.

Also note that the "fake news" scare originally started from a professor creating a list of "fake news" websites was itself fake!. The list has since been taken down, but the term "fake news site" that it coined will be with us for awhile.

The “fake news” freakout: The story about a professor creating an authoritative list of “fake news” websites, as widely reported across the mainstream media, was itself a fake news story. The creator of the list was a madcap left-wing activist who compiled it on a whim, not through any sort of rigorously-vetted academic process. When the list of fake news sites came under sustained criticism, it was removed from the Internet, long after generating a raft of stories on top news websites and TV shows.

As with many of the other stories above, the fake-news-site list received huge MSM coverage because it dovetailed with a Democrat political initiative – President Obama is personally involved – and it flattered both the ideological preferences and business interests of Big Media.

Huh? "Sojurner" means "traveler" or "temporary visitor". It in no way means "immigrant". Sheesh. The ancient laws about hospitality to guests were extremely important. You couldn't just stop off at a roadside diner or grab a microwave burrito from 7-11 when you were traveling. You depended on the hospitality of the local residents. This is one of the reasons explorers always made such a big deal about hostile natives, they were violating one of the oldest compacts of humanity.

That's one of the things that this election really drove home - the misappropriation of taxonomy. To liberals, there really is no difference between "legal immigrant", someone who waited in line and did everything right, and "illegal immigrant", someone who didn't bother to obtain consent and barged right in uninvited. Canada and Mexico both don't allow illegal immigration, neither does any other country on the planet, why is America so exceptional here? Oh, and we're not mass murderers although I suppose it is highly satisfying to say so.

"In a rational world it would be obvious that Trump supporters include lots of brilliant and well-informed people. That fact - as obvious as it would seem - is invisible to the folks who can't even imagine a world in which their powers of perception could be so wrong. To reconcile their world, they have to imagine all Trump supporters as defective in some moral or cognitive way, or both."

The Cognitive Dissonance Cluster Bomb

"In a rational world it would be obvious that Trump supporters include lots of brilliant and well-informed people. That fact - as obvious as it would seem - is invisible to the folks who can't even imagine a world in which their powers of perception could be so wrong. To reconcile their world, they have to imagine all Trump supporters as defective in some moral or cognitive way, or both."

The Cognitive Dissonance Cluster Bomb

It's pretty clear that the election was rigged, but the rigging wasn't big enough to suppress the will of the people. E.g., about 3-million illegal aliens voted, presumably overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary. Hundreds of thousands of ballots in Florida were fabricated. As for organized political violence, you pretty much only see that leftists (and Islamists). As Scott Adams pointed out in his blog: "7. Group Violence versus Crazy Individuals: Have you noticed that when you see election-related violence from a group, it is always Clinton supporters? That happened at Trump’s San Jose rally, and it happened with the homeless woman protecting Trump’s star on the Walk of Fame. When Trump supporters do something violent they are usually acting alone, and crazy. When Clinton supporters get violent it comes in the form of mobs who are NOT crazy. That’s the dangerous kind of violence because they are literally Stronger Together."

He is hiding his income and taxes

Keeping private is not "hiding". Are you "hiding" your phone number? No? Post it then.

He clearly hates non-white
That's not what his black employees say, nor just that mesh with him picking Omarissa years ago to win The Apprentice (which also meant he would have to work with her).

non-straight non-male people

Trump is the most pro-gay GOP candidate there has ever been, far better for the LGBT community than Hillary would have been.

As for women, well if Trump hates women so much why did he keep hiring them to lead his campaign, including the last one that led him to victory?

He incites violence.

Sorry I'm having trouble seeing the Trump violence over Portland burning, and the fake protestors the DNC hired to mess up Trump rallies.

He knows next to nothing about anything.

And yet he still won, so obviously what he does know is how to find and hire the right people who do know how to accomplish things.

That he's a child molester?

Claimed just before the election, and we are supposed to believe that.... meanwhile Hillary was covering for Bill having sex with under-age females for decades. Don't see you very against that you monster.

You could use some dehypnotization from your anti-Trump delusions.

Scott Adams on Trump:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

You should try Scott Adams' dehyponotization posting to try to correct your faulty reasoning on which candidate is crazy.

That would be because Human beings are not rational.

Oh, and I'd point out that the science of fetalogy, does not rely on sacred texts, unless you consider an ultrasound picture a sacred text, in which case you've got a bigger problem with your cargo cult than whether or not to let abortion be practiced.

Trump is more loyal to Putin than to Obama. He's more loyal to Russia than America. If he gets power, he'll hand over control of the middle east to Putin. That's all the oil, that's resources, that's geopolitical advantage. Either by incompetence or design.

Republicans, jfdavis668, I appreciate you want to get him elected, but do you really want your guy in power so much that you'd sell out your country?

You don't hold power when Putin has power, you have fake elections and lots of Putin statues and astroturf.

That's a hillbully tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.

I think that's #16 on the list.

Tell us about ethics. Tell us why Hillary's brand of integrity would be better for the country.

Excellent, we are sympatico :)

Now, I'm not saying I believe Scott Adams' interpretation of events, but it seems plausible: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

At this point, now that they've got a warrant for searching the Wiener laptop, we can expect possible changes to Comey's July opinion, depending on the evidence surfaced. At the very least, I think Huma gets thrown under the bus for mishandling classified materials, but if she goes down swinging, as Clinton's right hand lady, she's probably got dirt on Hillary for days. Heck, even if she tries to take a bullet for Hillary, and takes all the blame, their relationship is so close it's hard to believe there wouldn't be blowback.

The popcorn is popping, and we've all got front row seats. My black swan prediction - they find that Huma forwarded classified materials to ISIS, or the muslim brotherood, or some other terrorist organization.

Even the other Democratic candidate considers it a non-issue, and has said so since the very beginning of the primaries campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.

Real issue, such as Clinton supporters being bullies?

There's not a one among you who can rub two words together without insulting someone.

Delete the insults from any pro-Clinton position and you have nothing left!

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

funny how bullying and putting down people has become 'insightful' on slashdot. its endemic now. for that alone..

Obligatory Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-...

Twitter used to be free speech, but now it seems to be banning people right and left with the excuse "hate speech". In many cases the speech contains no insults whatsoever, and in many cases the speech is using clear terms in a non-insulting way to put forth a political view.

Google has several clear examples. For example, Scott Adams was banned from twitter for no apparent reason, and apparently gets banned from periscope [streaming app owned by twitter] whenever he starts talking about Trump.

Twitter is trying to engineer a "safe place" where no one can be insulted, and only approved speech is allowed.

It's bad enough that wikileaks threatened to start its own Twitter in response to the ban of Milo Yiannopoulos.

I think people are starting to realize that twitter's war on free speech makes it less interesting. When a celebrity with 9 million followers gets banned, that's 9 million customers who get put off and go somewhere else.

And I think that wikileaks will eventually be the answer. There's been no public announcement, but it's entirely possible that wikileaks *is* working on a twitter replacement, and of course it would be completely free speech.

By catering to the censors and thought police, twitter is digging its own grave and will get replaced by someone who's not afraid to stand up for free speech.

In a year or two, twitter will be on the cupboard of history, alongside companies (such as Google+) that restricted and pissed off its customers.

Twitter used to be free speech, but now it seems to be banning people right and left with the excuse "hate speech". In many cases the speech contains no insults whatsoever, and in many cases the speech is using clear terms in a non-insulting way to put forth a political view.

Google has several clear examples. For example, Scott Adams was banned from twitter for no apparent reason, and apparently gets banned from periscope [streaming app owned by twitter] whenever he starts talking about Trump.

Twitter is trying to engineer a "safe place" where no one can be insulted, and only approved speech is allowed.

It's bad enough that wikileaks threatened to start its own Twitter in response to the ban of Milo Yiannopoulos.

I think people are starting to realize that twitter's war on free speech makes it less interesting. When a celebrity with 9 million followers gets banned, that's 9 million customers who get put off and go somewhere else.

And I think that wikileaks will eventually be the answer. There's been no public announcement, but it's entirely possible that wikileaks *is* working on a twitter replacement, and of course it would be completely free speech.

By catering to the censors and thought police, twitter is digging its own grave and will get replaced by someone who's not afraid to stand up for free speech.

In a year or two, twitter will be on the cupboard of history, alongside companies (such as Google+) that restricted and pissed off its customers.

1) TruePundit is not a real news website.
2) It's much simpler than that. Julian Assange is a right-winger - a self-described fan of Ron Paul, anti-abortion, and with a long history of supporting authoritarian leaders worldwide.

Scott Adams says that attacking the source first is a tell for being "guilty".

I notice that you didn't sat that the information was false.

Was that on purpose?

http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-...

Scott Adams calls Hillary Clinton supporters brainwashed. That includes /. editors.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

Relevant Scott Adams:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...

Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

Nice argument from authority you've got going there. Of course, pointing that out would be an attack on your source. Nice self-fulfilling argument you've got there!

Huh.

Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

I'd largely agree, with exceptions. I'd also point out it's ironic considering how much of a Trump fan Scott Adams is (ie, Trump's response to the women accusing him of assault).

I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.

Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".

Was that on purpose?

I'll cite a source that says James O'Keefe makes videos that are lies after I cite a source that says the sky is blue. Both are extremely well established facts.

As for further reviews, I'm not going to bother analyzing manufactured evidence.

Because the evidence is junk.

First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.

As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.

Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!

Huh.

Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.

Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".

Was that on purpose?

On that point, here are a couple of more examples.

Democrats hired protesters to get into fights at Trump rallys, to give the appearance that Trump supporters are violent thugs.

From that article, note that one of the hired protesters filed suit against a Trump supporter claiming that she was punched in the face. The first cited article has a secret recording of the person hired to orchestrate the fights, where he mentions that the protester was one of his group.

(And here she is after the incident, smiling, with no evidence of bruising or injury.)

Also of note, Scott Adams got shadowbanned from twitter, for no apparent reason, and has seen invitations for speaking go from several per month (for decades) to none. He estimates that blogging about the election has cost him $1 million in speaking fees alone.

And of course, after all that people started leaving fake bad reviews of his book.

Trump supporters have been pretty polite throughout the election. We don't put naked statues of Hillary in cities, or have billboards of her kissing Huma Abedin, or make comparisons of her to Hitler, Stalin, Satan, or Cthulhu.

This is the 3-week mark where all civil discourse goes to hell, both IRL and on this blog.

Expect things to get much *much* worse.

"The people who make the decisions to outsource don't know technology..."

Exactly. They make stupid decisions. Today's Dilbert cartoon is relevant.

Scott Adams (who writes Dilbert) is on vacation in Switzerland, and his recent blog post had this snippet, which got me really angry:

[...] I also asked the Swiss man what kind of problems they have in Switzerland. He laughed again. The answer is “none.” Literally.
Good economy.
Plenty of jobs.
No racial strife.
Low crime rate.
Highest standard of living.
No real pollution.
No litter.
No homeless that I could see.

The reason it angered me is that here's a country where the government tries to give the citizens a good life. They have fixed all of the major problems and are just letting their citizens live in quiet enjoyment.

The Swiss government is considering implementing a guaranteed minimum income.

Over here in the US, our infrastructure is crumbling, our healthcare is at 3rd world level, jobs are scarce (and we're outsourcing more and more), and two thirds of the people are on the brink of poverty, and the government spies on and opresses everyone.

It's as if the government sees the people as some sort of harvest-able crop whose purpose is to provide taxes, where their only efforts are towards maximum yield.

Why yes, yes he did: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...