Slashdot Mirror

I've never had an easier time justifying voting for the lesser of two evils as I have this Presidential election. Why? Because I live in Wisconsin and over the last year have seen first hand what their game plan is if they get control of the Legislative and Executive branches. The state that once elected "Fighting" Bob Lafollette is having it's collective bargaining rights dismantled, a slew of theocratic Christian bullshit shoved down our throats, bills introduced declaring single-mothers are abusing their children, and the repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, among many other repugnant things.

Democrats are just as owned by big business as the Republicans, but at least they're not trying to actively roll back civil rights in this country. I'll do damn near anything to prevent that shit from occurring on the national stage...

http://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/lean-challenge_b_1432765.html http://www.llli.org/FAQ/bflength.html http://www.notmilk.com/ http://www.naturalnews.com/031255_milk_health.html Hell, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+milk+is+bad+for+humans Cow's milk is essential only for their calf, and only when they are growing, just like human breast milk for their children. It is a myth that more milk is good for our bones and yadda yadda. The USDA pushes the milk campaign to keep making money.

People bread like rabbits once there is enough food and water to go around.

Wrong. There is an over-abundance of food and water throughout the western world and other wealthly nations and population, not counting immigration, is either at replacement or declining. Malthus was simply wrong. Please stop promulgating your mutual ignorance.

That's unmitigated bullshit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

This should be big news. Even while President Obama was saying that he thought a public option was a good idea and encouraging supporters to believe his healthcare plan would include one, he had promised for-profit hospital lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final bill.

As for Gitmo -- he's the commander in chief. That leaves two options: he's too weak to be president, or he lied in his campaign. Neither option is really all that awesome.

Bush went to war against Iraq, Obama got us out. Can you see the wee-bit of difference there? I can and I'm voting for Obama.

This notion you have is so misinformed it's appalling.

Obama did not leave, Obama got booted. Dec. 2011 marked the end of the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by GWB. SOFA prevented the Iraqi government from local prosecution of US troops for crimes committed in Iraq. Prior to the expiration of SOFA, Obama tried to get it extended so that the troops could stay longer and avoid any risk of prosecution. Obama failed in those negotiations, in large part because the war crimes confirmed in the WikiLeaks cache, made it politically impossible for Iraqi politicians to extend SOFA.

In other words, you are giving Obama credit for ending the war in Iraq when he tried to EXTEND it. To put this in Slashdot car analogy form, that's like giving a drunk driver accolades for not killing anyone while driving home, despite being blitzed and despite intentionally swerving at oncoming traffic. That's not laudable, it's despicable even if the drunk accidentally missed everyone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

Finally, if Bradley Manning was the source behind the wikileaks cache, rather than the torture and persecution he is receiving under Obama, he should get a fucking Nobel because it is HE who got us out of Iraq.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

If you're going to vote for Obama, and you really believe he's some sort of peace loving socialist, consider some of the issues here: http://nothingchanged.org/

The recently enacted JOBS Act:

1) "Once again, the Puppets on Capitol Hill are about to slam the Muppets on Main Street. The country still hasn’t recovered from the Wall Street-induced financial cataclysm of 2008, yet Congress is preparing to enact the Orwellian ”JOBS Act”—a bill that should in fact be called the “Return Fraud to Wall Street in One Easy Step Act.” The bill will undo some of the most important reforms placed on Wall Street in a generation."
Slate link

2) "In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets."
Rolling Stone (Taibbi) link

3) “Simply, the JOBS Act will make funding more accessible for startups by allowing non-accredited investors to participate in the funding rounds, and this alone, I believe will be the main factor driving the increase in new companies being founded. And with new companies comes the need to hire staff. Without a doubt, this will help the current unemployment rate,” said Tanya Prive, founder of Rock The Post, a social networking platform for entrepreneurs to fund and swap resources."
Forbes link

4) "It is self-defeating for us to say this because as criminologists and anti-fraud specialists we would have job security for life if this bill was adopted. It is literally composed of the wish list in regard to fraud-friendly provisions that those intent on cheating have been dreaming about and salivating to achieve for decades. This bill will kill millions of jobs because financial frauds are weapons of mass financial destruction. It will start an international fraud-friendly deregulation race to the bottom and will become the basis for further criminogenic U.S. Congressional actions."
Huffington Post Link

5) "Amy Borrus, a spokeswoman for the Council of Institutional Investors, an investor watchdog group, said small companies — the focus of the new bill’s relaxed regulations — are particularly prone to fraud and accounting scandals. Senators did add some investor protections, but not enough, she said."
New York Times link

So... we might be looking at a jump (bubble?) in the stock market. I don't quite know what to make of it yet, but the initial reviews seem to be pointing to such a thing. Investigate and plan accordingly (and try not to lose your shirts).

Progressive? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

NDAA - Obama signed a statement saying he won't use the indefinite detention part of it.

What's up with all these laws, that are getting passed and the people who are directly or indirectly responsible for passing them are all promising not to use the new powers they acquire?

Why don't they just own up to the truth - there is no reason to pass these privacy and freedom destroying laws if you have no reason to use them, you pass them because you are intending to use them (or you are intending for them to be used, even if it is not you directly who is going to use them).

When is it going to stop exactly and why would it stop?

When was the last time you saw a couple guilty of adultery begin stoned to death at the city gates?

August 2010, in Afghanistan, under the guise of Islamic rule of law. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/taliban-stone-couple-for_n_683080.html

And only a few days ago a woman in Iran was sentenced to stoning for adultery. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291166/Iranian-mother-faces-death-stoning-convicted-adultery.html

Here's an idea. Stand up, in your cubicle, and ask out loud 'does anyone here know how to perform a formal investigation?'

You laugh, but at Fox News they apparently do!

I have Comcast for high speed internet, or nothing! I don't care if you encrypt my information or send it to the cloud in China, having some competition is better than living in a monopolistic world where the monopolies even corrupt the government

It was based on a poll. Therefore it wasn't exactly scientific.

Just adding a somewhat related anecdote (not my own) -

A Message From a Republican Meteorologist on Climate Change;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-douglas/republican-climate-change_b_1374900.html

Very true, I agree! The homophobes make up a very small minority in this country, and even smaller percentage in the rest of the world (remember EA has customers worldwide) and the homophobic a-holes are not the target demographic for EA. The ancient minded idiots aren't the game playing type anyway. EA appeals to younger audience who realize that sexual orientation isn't cause for discrimination. Some people like fish, some like beef, whatever you happen to enjoy: it doesn't mean you're righteous or vile, it's just what you happen to enjoy. Younger generation realizes what you do in your bedroom is of no concern to people outside of your bedroom.

Let's face it, the fundies are simply opposed to reality. They can't handle the reality.

Luckily http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/poll-suggests-america-has-turned-a-corner-on-homophobia.php

These same a-holes were bitching because JCPenney hired lesbian actress Ellen for their latest ads, and JCPenney basically told them to fuck off and they kept Ellen. I commend their decision and so do most people in this country. The homophobic a-holes are a loudmouth group and they're very loud and obnoxious, but they don't represent anyone. The market has spoken: nobody cares about the minority of loudmouth homophobic a-holes who hate everything.

Interesting that should you mention that ;)

Microsoft, Apple Unite to Demand That the National Organization for Marriage Boycott Them

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-wooledge/microsoft-apple-unite-to-_b_1394821.html

"Streisand effect" anyone?

Naw... "Starbucks Effect" ... where anti-Gay protests causes your stocks to rise.

Supposedly Starbucks is doing so well that Microsoft and Apple want the Anti-Gay NOM Group to boycott them as well </satire>.

pretty much anything google puts out, apparently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/women-more-likely-to-date_n_549176.html

Too bad you're a liar. Trayvon had no criminal record whatsoever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rashad-robinson/trayvon-martin-tragedy_b_1390171.html

Bring your source.

Somewhere I heard a compilation of 911 calls, but currently this is all I can find (the search results are too polluted by these idiots with their magic software):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html

I have no audio so I can't listen to verify that these are the correct recordings, but I'll check back later when I can.

Peter Gleick says "I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication." ... and that "The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget." (link).
You have not provided enough evidence to support the accusation of forgery.

The suicide rate in these places is shocking.

You lost all credibility right there. There's plenty to criticize about Apple, the suicide rate at a contractor's factories is not one of them.

The Foxconn worker suicide rate (1.5 per 100,000 at its worst, in 2010) is lower than the general Chinese population (22.23 per 100,000).

It is lower than New York (6 per 100,000), which itself is over half the national average (11 per 100,000).

It is lower than US soldiers soldiers (20 per 100,000 as of 2008), which was already an 80% jump over the rate in 2004.

It is lower than suicide rates at both MIT and Harvard (10.2 and 7.4 per 100,000, respectively, from a 2001 report). That's right, MIT and Harvard students are PAYING to be there, and their suicide rate is higher than Foxconn workers.

What are you doing about those shocking numbers? Who are you holding to account and starting online petitions to boycott?

The only thing shocking about the suicide rate of Foxconn workers is that people like you keep thinking it bolsters your argument. Hint: it does the exact opposite, if only you'd thought to analyze it for one minute.

Except that Google (and other non-governmental entities) must respond when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

One of many examples: such as when Congress hauls their butt into a hearing over their privacy practices.

The government, after all, is jealously seeking a monopoly on invasive privacy violations.

conservatives oppose regulations

Pull the other one!

A quick Googling of "arrested for not turning cell phone off on plane" shows MANY results. First: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/air-passenger-arrested-fo_0_n_950326.html

Has a single company that has done this been identified by name? Every article I've seen does NOT mention any name, making it sound more anecdotal than factual.

maryland department of corrections was screening guards this way. Looking for gang signs. West Coooast! *does the twisted finger thing* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/aclu-facebook-password_n_1372242.html.

And such guards are sworn law enforcement officers that must agree to background checks and investigations. Investigations that involve contacting and interviewing friends, family, acquaintances, colleagues, etc. Not only those individuals provided by the prospective employee but those secondary contacts (friends of friends so to speak) that interviewees mention as also knowing the prospective employee.

I'm afraid the Maryland DOC case is a poor example of invasion of privacy.

The truth is that regular employers that have a clue already know that logging into a candidate's facebook account is illegal. It is against the law to ask a candidate's age and certain other personal information. Information that is visible in facebook. Regular employers already know they are setting themselves up to be sued if they do so. Are there aberrations, of course, but there is no widespread trend and there will not be. Even with existing laws on the books.

Has a single company that has done this been identified by name? Every article I've seen does NOT mention any name, making it sound more anecdotal than factual.

maryland department of corrections was screening guards this way. Looking for gang signs. West Coooast! *does the twisted finger thing* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/aclu-facebook-password_n_1372242.html.

Maybe they use less data because iPhone apps aren't constantly uploading their gps coordinates and downloading ads. If you look at mobile web traffic, iOS beats android. Even when you factor out the iPad.

Which in turn goes to GP's comment that iPhone customers pay more -- in this case, they pay more for apps. Any user that switches (in either direction) can attest to the fact that many apps in Appstore are paid where their Android Market equivalent would be ad-supported.

That in turn goes to developer interest in the iPhone over Android.

true: Apple, directly or indirectly, uses child and slave labor to make consumer electronics.

true: So does everyone else.

true: You don't care.

If you want to cause change: Either mass-protest ALL of these companies and their products (good luck!), or do a startup if you have a better idea.

Otherwise: Stop pretending and continue loving your "precious" at all costs while screwing underage Chinese girls, you disgusting pedophiles.

Apparently people and groups in China suing Apple for cash (which has close to $100B on hand) is now a thing — witness the lawsuit filed by flat-ass broke Proview over the iPad name it gave up the rights to years ago (via a Taiwan subsidiary so it could try to hide the money Apple paid it from its creditors).

This sounds like a nuisance lawsuit filed against a big company specifically to try to extort a cash settlement out of convenience, rather than suing the actual copyright infringer (which is probably not as well-financed and may not even be known to the "authors' group"). I think they're in for a surprise when they get to court.

As it turns out, Brand is being charged with "simple criminal damage to property". Which fits with my assertion, namely, the reason that the police didn't charge him with robbery ("simple robbery" apparently being the appropriate charge) is because he didn't actually take anything. And once again, "taken" doesn't just merely mean grabbed out of one's hands and thrown away.

First charges made are always "exaggerated". They're basically the most far reaching that they can possibly go for, and then they reign them in as more details emerge, and they have a better idea of what to charge the person with. This is because lessening charges is significantly easier than raising charges.

A good analysis appears to be available on lacriminaldefensepartners.com, explaining a legal theory for robbery, but also the reality of what the prosecutors would probably do. I can't seem to find any better details about Brand's criminal action...

However, it appears that Chris Brown snatched a phone out of a fan's hands and drove off with it, suggesting fully all the intent and conditions of robbery, for simply snatching a phone out of someone's hands.

Friend you appear to have engaged mouth before utilizing brain. Of course there are more millionaires, the dollar is only worth 6 cents... do the math.

The question you posed is social mobility and it has never been worse in the United States. In fact social mobility is significantly greater in most of Europe than the U.S. and all you had to do was a quick search to find that, or perhaps you did and chose to ignore the truth to make your point.

The top 400 wealthiest people in this country now have the same wealth as the lower 170,000,000 citizens. Can you see the problem. The wealth is locked up in the hands of a vanishing few. That means there's nothing left for the rest of us. Your comment above about millionaires is precisely the problem. With a vanishingly few exceptions, the masses are being locked into futures unable to afford decent educations, social service or viable means to escape their condition and things are getting precipitously worse. Add age discrimination and a failing network of services for the poor and serious ugly is just around the corner. French Revolution style ugly. Why do you think we built up a private security army (yes, I know, make Dick Cheney one the super-wealthy.) Their use in Iraq was just the testing grounds.

AAPL is not the best short in the market, but I would not go long either, based on the cracks now appearing in its mainstay franchises. This is entirely appart from the fact that I do not make a habit of investing in unethical organizations.

They would if Mr. Dears ever worked for them.
I'm not wishing to troll, I just think stranger things have happened...

Like for instance, Google asking for partial SSN's for a kid's art contest...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-bowdon/why-has-google-been-colle_b_825754.html

I think assuming there is information Google *doesn't* have is the first mistake.

No one is being "given" anything by force. It's a personal choice which doesn't affect anyone else and you and everyone else should stay out of it unless you have a non-liberty-restricting solution which works. (see Portugal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/portugal-drug-laws-decriminalization-_n_889531.html)

Hopefully, many.

I'm not above saying that Kari is an attractive young woman (just as the young lady at the EFF booth was very pleasing to the eye).

However, if you've ever done any people watching, or even just hit google images with a random name, you'll know that attractive young women, and attractive young men, are a dime a dozen.

I would much more value Kari for her beliefs, knowledge, etc. than her looks.

And to whom it matters what the person looks like, there's certainly a lot more videos where those persons will exploit it. Unfortunately Slashdot didn't cover this (as far as I know), but it's a good read about how some women are exploiting themselves for some of Google's sweet, sweet advertising money:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/alejandra-gaitain-and-you_n_1328195.html

Even the current system isn't correct. The Republican Party holds voting accuracy as near sacred as part of their party talking points. Take a look at how they handled a primary season where they should have absolute control over the rules:
* Iowa went from Romney to Santorum, though a statistical tie, because someone mistyped a 2 as 22: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/01/18/rick-santorum-might-have-actually-won-the-iowa-caucuses
* Maine almost didn't even count a whole county: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/maines-miscount-one-county-might-be-included-after-saturday/
* Nobody can seem to make up their minds on what to do about Florida. It is supposed to be, normally, a winner take all state. It moved its primary up and got sanctioned by the party by having its delegates cut in-half. Also, it may or may not be proportional. We'll find out in August: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/26/2610390/fight-looms-over-fla-delegates.html
* Missouri has two elections this year. The first doesn't county, but everyone is assuming it will. The one that was held already was state mandated, but the state Republicans, not wanting to lose half their delegates, have decided that one won't count. They'll have a second one that will really count. Note : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/missouri-primary-2012-explained_n_1257817.html
* She was allowed to vote once it was all sorted out, but an 84-year-old was initially told she was dead when she appeared at the polls: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/84-year-old-fall-river-woman-tries-to-vote-told-shes-dead/

My apologies to any Republicans I offended with these results. I only used these examples as they are near immediate in time scale.

The current voting system is full of flaws. It has been full of flaws. It will likely remain full of flaws. No need to worry about hackers mucking up an election when a typo can swing an election, and never have gotten caught if someone didn't post an image to FaceBook. So I don't see on-line voting as some type of corrupting influence on a pristine system.

The problem I see here is in the oversight. Considering it took two days for Washington D.C. to notice, I would say the real problem was not so much that the system got hacked, but D.C. didn't care enough about the election to monitor it as it was going on. The same lackluster oversight could still swing *cough*Iowa*cough* a close election.

There are many references to the studies.

All you need to create a good programming language is a beard. The more epic the beard, the better your language will be

I personally look forward to the zombie Muhammad programming language

I recommend reading his speech on race. He wrote it himself and it's probably the best political speech I've read in decades. His marketing department is not him. He's clearly above average intelligence if you read past the campaign slogans and edited interviews.

Meredith Attwell Baker did this and was not charged, so why not everyone else who wants to make a buck at the people's expense?

Well, what about the Carter stimulus, when he tried the same thing? I'm not sure there many stimulus ideas that have a stimulus multiplier of greater than 1. If you can devise a stimulus plan that would actually have a stimulus multiplier of greater than 1, I'd be interested in seeing it. (incidentally, when I say Bush tax rebates, I'm not talking about all of his cuts; and with the Obama cut, I'm not talking about all his stimulus; and same with the carter payroll tax. Of course it's hard to extricate any particular spending from the total economy, but it doesn't seem like any of those had a stimulating effect greater than its cost).

That reminds me of this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/deer-crossing-sign-problem_n_869214.html

Remember the Katrina shootings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/mistrial-declared-in-katrina-shooting_n_1239525.html After enough mistrials, the case will likely be quietly dropped as the public forgets. Shit it has been 7 years already.

Please don't make comments if you don't know what you are talking about! (oh, wait, this is slashdot...) And forget?? Where you live 'people' might forget but here in New Orleans we forget very, very little of Katrina. Officers that did the shooting have been convicted and sentenced. The mistrial you point out is for one officer who was on the cover up side. Dugue was not even involved in the shooting. Please don't spread ignorance. (and don't back-peddle saying it was the cover-up dude getting off. He's not off, there's just been a mistrial)

That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"

Cops get let off all the time, some examples: http://bit.ly/dWV5ab
This cop is not suffering from dementia, they showed him on the TV afterwards walking, talking, and smiling. In addition, it is typical in VA to be held indefinitely if your are unable to stand trial, as VA has no insanity defense.

Remember the Katrina shootings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/mistrial-declared-in-katrina-shooting_n_1239525.html
After enough mistrials, the case will likely be quietly dropped as the public forgets. Shit it has been 7 years already.

Do I really need to mention the Rodney King riots?

The only thing China really wants from NK is to act as a strong buffer against the capitalistic influence of SK,

And a sock puppet to export nuclear and missile technology to Syria, Iran, Hamas, Burma and probably a few other places.

Ever heard of cleanstim? Its good enough to drink! The industry has changed. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/halliburton-executive-drinks-fracking-fluid_n_933621.html

He abused his position, broke his oath

There is also a case that could be made that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law (to which the US is subject), to expose the crimes he saw.

There is a larger debate that should be had about how much of that information really should be secret, and if so from who, and then for how long.

I think this question is already answered that most, if not all, of the information leaked by Manning should not have been secret. From what I've seen the information falls into basically two categories, either it's innocuous, or it reveals immoral and often criminal behaviour. Neither of these should have been kept secret.

Even if we assume that Manning was doing 'the right thing by [caring] about freedom of information, exposing war crimes, and holding the powerful responsible for their atrocities , his acts are those of a vigilante. Thus, his methods subvert his cause.

Calling him a vigilante is quite a stretch since he didn't really punish anyone other than exposing what they were doing.

If he did what he did and blindly uploaded to wikileaks... well then that's the end of it. He's a naive fool who thought his cause of the week was worth the risk. Maybe he still feels that way?

I would hope that preventing war crimes and exposing government wrongdoing is more than just his "cause of the week". Maybe you believe the things he exposed were just not that serious? In my opinion killing civilians should be taken very seriously, and it should be punished appropriately instead of covered up.

Can't tell if you're trolling for a response or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (despite your posting as AC).

You read a lot between the lines in my posting, erroneously. If you're gonna stick me in a category, consider me a Christian Unitarian. I'll be the last one to go criticizing someone else's religious beliefs, as long as they don't go interfering with mine on a serious level (like hanging, stoning, flogging, beheading, or expensive fines). I'm well aware of the hypocrisy inherent in most, if not all, of the large/organized/popular religions. The Crusades were bad. The going on's in Palestine is a mess due to actions on both sides, as far as I can see. That deranged right wing anti-Muslim idiot? Yeah, see deranged. You may as well said deranged anti Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches idiot. He's a deranged idiot looking for any reason, and if anti-Muslim wasn't a reason, something else proabbly would have been.

In short, I have no problem with a Muslim being affronted if I say something bad about Mohammed, as long as he's not about to go to the government and have my self-evident rights trampled on in order to salve his wounded faith. I'm not sure where you got the "spouting generalized hatred" bit about, but you might want to pick up some learning comprehension before getting all righteous.

What I do have a problem with is a government imposing religious beliefs and imposing *serious* consequences for what I'd consider minor issues. Nobody in the U.S. is going to be arrested and face jail time or execution ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/saudi-writer-mohammad_n_1273081.html ) for tweeting critical statements about Jesus, Buddha, or any other religious figure. Rioting, murdering, raping, kidnapping, etc.? Yes, they should be arrested and dealt with appropriately. Not for making a critical statement, however irreverent.

While we're at it, I also have a problem with large groups of people rioting, killing, and otherwise doing *bad stuff* for what would be considered a minor event anywhere else. All that rioting because somebody (likely unintentionally) burned a few copies of Koran? Ridiculous. If someone burned a truckload of Bibles in Afghanistan, I doubt I'd see rioting in the US or any where else.

The way I see it, this world would be a lot better off if everyone took a step back from the situation, tried to look at it from the other guy's point of view, tolerated a bit more, and generally paid more attentions to their own business than what everyone else may be doing. Live by that "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

You have to wonder why some politicians in the US idolize western Europe.

Citation? Or are you just going off old el' Rushbo?

You're joking, right? Obama campaigned in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#Middle_Eastern_and_European_tour
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/18/obama.trip/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-in-berlin-video-of_n_114771.html

The result is that topic after topic has hit the limit of 500 comments, most of them in Chinese.

They have other American Presidents who were and remain quite willing (some with unseemly eagerness) to put the interests of China's people far ahead of the American people's.

Of course, some few real people in America did benefit... as did some corporate "people", too...