Slashdot Mirror

Polar opposites ?

Central control of the economy
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check

"The state" is totalitarian : determines every action you take
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check

Favors "nanny state", unemployment benefits that equal normal wage, national health insurance, refusing medical care to "non-productive" members of society (as does Obama's adviser btw*) ...
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check

When "saving" on medical expenses on the "less productive" members of society failed, these governments switched to direct execution of those deemed unproductive
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check

Executed holocausts in historical governments, starting with political opponents, then sick and infirm (anyone not a "net gain" for the economy) and finally on a racist or religious basis :
a. socialism : check check check
b. fascism : check

The basis of the ideology is that all individuals must "be made" equal, by the power of the state. In order to do this massive expansion of state power is advocated :
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check

The systems call themselves "socialist" :
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check (full name of "nazi" party = national socialist german worker's party)

Main difference :
a. socialism : doesn't tolerate any non-party-members in any position of power (right down to the person that checks if the "do you want fries with that" jobbers arrive in time)
b. fascism : is in favor of a system of temporarily handing state power into the hands of certain individuals. Only the top level of society is really thoroughly part of the party, it is possible in a fascist state for a non-party-member, even a Jew, to be in any position, except the top of the company, whether CEO or Chairman.

The definition of "far left" used to be simple : anything ideology that advocates central control of the economy. Obviously both fascism and socialism satisfy this criterium. Bush should have been considered "center", not especially rightist, not especially leftist, open to solutions on both sides.

I don't know where people get the idea that socialists somehow weren't racist even 20 years ago (the KKK for example, was a department of the democrat party of the united states, and was part of the "lefty loonies" section of the party, ie. left of the center of the party)

Tell me, at where exactly is the "polar" opposite between these two ?

* Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's "key" advisor for health care reform, writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing â" which is fundamental to Obamacare goals â" "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.

Note that the democrat "death panel" already exists, it's been created as part of the stimulus bill. It's called "CHORE" (Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation). And yes, they will deny medical care to anyone on any form of government supported pension. That's one of the basisses they proclaim for themselves.

The problem seems to be that in this particular case, the mass-killer *didn't* lie. But Bush didn't get his information directly from Saddam, did he ? He can't just make a phonecall or something. Instead, he had to rely on the CIA, who also doesn't ask Saddam directly, but instead (as it seems to be now) is pushed by Cheney's office to produce damning evidence.

Actually, WMD's WERE FOUND IN IRAQ! Just not in large enough numbers for our media to deem newsworthy.

But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of preconceived notions and talking points.

Oh, and in case you haven't realized, everyone is now suspect of terrorism.

That's OK, all adult men have been suspected pedophiles for years. Adding potential terrorist to the list doesn't really phase me.

I don't endorse the view of this guy, but the summary is asking the question "why did it take 28 years?" and this short blog entry attempts to offer an explanation.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/27/the-real-reaso n-why-mit-dean-marilee-jones-was-fired/

The fact MIT was tipped off by an anonymous person (why wouldn't MIT simply say it was an internal audit, even simply refuse to comment?) makes the story ripe for conspiracy theory.

My great grandfather fought for this country, my grandfather fought for this country, my father fought for this country, and my friends have fought for this country. So you can play the Veteran card and act like that has any real bearing on the situation, and I'll just go on stating the facts of the matter. Don't get me wrong; I respect your service to the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, but just as you have spared me no harsh words, I shall act accordingly.

You may not think that we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but I'll tell you right now, you are WRONG. In Iraq alone they found 1.77 metric TONS of enriched uranium. They found 1,500 GALLONS of chemical weapons. They found 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin. Do you know what cyclosarin is? It's a deadly nerve agent with five times the effectiveness of sarin gas. But more importantly, they found 1,000 radioactive materials that are used in dirty bombs. Don't believe me? Well, CNN sure as hell won't cover that. MoveOn.org won't have that on their front page. And you damn well better believe that the Democrats did their best to cover that up.

I'll even post my sources. I'll be fully transparent in this, and I'll be ACCOUNTABLE for what I say... which is more than I can say for you, Anonymous Coward. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=38213 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10101&of fer=&hidebodyad=true http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2 004/mariani052804.htm http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

Only 4 of the 535 members were briefed on the domestic/international warrant-less wiretaps.

This isn't unusual.

Highly classified information is often only revealed to select members of Congressional committees. It helps meet the dual goal of keeping Congress informed (the select members represent Congress, and have to use their judgment) while helping to keep classified information secret. That is difficult in a large, diverse body of people that make up Congress. That is especially so when some of them don't honor their responsibility to keep classified information secret, like Senator Leahy.

There is nothing sinister in that

Serves that Professor right for belonging to the wrong party. The proper handling for leftist frauds (aka originalist thinkers) is to give them pay raises.

The University of Colorado at Boulder decided to give Professor Ward Churchill a raise, recognizing his creativity in falsely claiming to be a native american, fabricating a special ops military career, stealing other people's art and claiming it as his own, "borrowing" others written works and in general, being an intellectual fraud. Investigations into his education have raised questions about the legitimacy of his degrees.

Unfortunately, the year-long "investigation" by his peers down here has mostly been an attempt to placate critics until the complaints die down (actually some have suggested it's more about telling the governor and the state to stay out of how UCB runs their university). Apparently it is acceptable to be a white man who steals from native american peoples and cheats students, universities and society in general as long as one is a politically correct "progressive" person.

I googled for that stuff you say about the dangers of circumcision, found several web sites with the exact same statement. What else did they all have in common? No references. They all say 209 baby boys die every year because of circumcision, but none add an "according to \insert name of reputable journal here\". In fact these sound very much like the class of information I describe as "internet truths" - that is things that are stated to be true across many web sites, but which actually are not.

I'll grant that it could be a dangerous operation in, say, sub-saharan africa where there is a danger of non-sterile medical instruments or poor sanitary conditions, but in first world nations such as the US? No.

Please provide a reference from a reputable medical journal backing up what you say.

Despite what some right-wing

Opposing the depredations of feminism does not make you "right wing". Go find a single statement from Glenn's columns or radio show that could honestly be considering "right wing". You seem to be thinking of these guys, but those guys are not Glenn.

I recommend that you start looking at reputable sources like the Census Bureau

The sources he sites are the U.S. Deptartment of Labor and the International Labor Organization, run by the U.N., not some right wing think tank. RTFA and then STFU.

Men get paid more because they work more, and in more dangerous situations, not because of any sexism. Deal with it.

this guy thinks otherwise (no idea how authoritive he is though) and IIRC Kelloggs (cornflakes guy) was important in that. If you think that 1971 is "quite recent" then I would disagree. And my personal beef with it is cos I might want to go out with an American at some stage...

Candidate John Kerry has said he will close the tax loophole that makes it advantageous to outsource call centers.

There are two problems with Senator Kerry's promise:

1. The tax loophole he wants to close doesn't exist.

2. Outsourcing is more than balanced by insourcing, and it's the cost savings from outsourcing that are driving that. And before you spout something about the quality of the insourced jobs, they pay far more than the national average.

In short, in this as in so many other things, Kerry is just lying to try to fool stupid people into voting for him.

I'd so like (actually luve), that people would start linking to the 'external material(s)' they are quoating/refering to ... so one could (if one wanted to) read all of the 'external material(s)' the person used, and assess if 'he or she' did a fair (enough) interpretation of the 'material(s)'

This isn't ssooo oddly uncommon, or whole scientific processes is built upon this very notion, that one provides all the info one has used to come to a conclusion - so it can be verified by <WHOEVER> ... and during/under the process settle intechnicallities or other disputes, and in the long end actually have 'something' everyone agrees with (well, there will allways be people still thinking/believing the earths flat .... so I mean 'all' in the sense of 'people with a fair amount of commonsense')

I'd so like (actually luve), that people would start linking to the 'external material(s)' they are quoating/refering to ... so one could (if one wanted to) read all of the 'external material(s)' the person used, and assess if 'he or she' did a fair (enough) interpretation of the 'material(s)'

This isn't ssooo oddly uncommon, or whole scientific processes is built upon this very notion, that one provides all the info one has used to come to a conclusion - so it can be verified by <WHOEVER> ... and during/under the process settle intechnicallities or other disputes, and in the long end actually have 'something' everyone agrees with (well, there will allways be people still thinking/believing the earths flat .... so I mean 'all' in the sense of 'people with a fair amount of commonsense')

Yeah I have to agree, Fact Check is pretty good.

MensNewsDaily.com collects pretty good commentary from a number of contributers on a number of issues that aren't forefront on the MSM. Their articles are short and poigniant. They have a forum you can discuss the articles in, so I would call that a blog.

Powerlineblog.com is pretty reasonable for commentary and was one of the big players in Rathergate. INDCJournal might be less reasonable but they have the quickest footwork in the business. They'll be the ones to call the sources, call experts, etc... Footwork that is a lost art in journalism. But their commentary is a bit off-balance and can often trip themselves up.

Little Green Footballs is often misunderstood, but I like them. They do their job very well. Even better though is Watch which is devoid of the sophmoric commentary.

But then there is an upper eschelon, which FactCheck belongs to, as does Belmont Club. When Belmont treats an issue, you've got gold.

But the absolute MOAB of the blogosphere is Bill Whittle. He posts seldomly, and when he does it is incredibly long. But there is no better writer on the Internet that I've found. As it says on his website: If Steven den Best is Spock, he is the Captain Kirk. Seriously there is no finer work on the internet than his "Strength" series, followed closely by "Empire".

For humor, Scrappleface and CoxandForkum are great. They not only give you the humor but they give you the stories that inspired it.

Unbelievably, Scott Ritter, former United Nations weapons inspector, first reported the "horrific scene" of prisons for children in Iraq in January 1998 when his team found one of the prisons in Baghdad. Ritter reported that this prison held toddlers to tweens (8-12 years old) and was used to get their parents who opposed the Saddam Hussein regime to come forward. Ritter has refused to elaborate further on what he saw in these prisons because he believed the sights he saw were "so horrible" that they would be "used by those who want to promote war with Iraq."

Shaker Al-Khaffaji, who also received 1 million barrels. Al-Khaffaji financed former American UN inspector, and vociferous war critic Scott Ritter's, In Shifting Sands a documentary which opposed the Iraqi sanctions.

Eisner's family owns a large estate in SE Vermont for many years.

So, see how Eisner has rewarded Leahy for his work on the Mickey Mouse copyright extension and other acts of kindness.

...needs a shave, though.

sexy pic of alanis

"(My choice is Dean.)"

Yeah, a slashdotter would choose the mastermind who was able to do this. Anyone who votes Dean, I've got a bag of dogshit to sell you...cuz you'll obviously buy any pile of crap.

And if you read enough articles, you'd know that what he said last week was plenty accurate and his assessment was more accurate than many that supposedly "know football." But keep carrying that liberal banner way up high if it makes you feel better about yourself. Just don't be surprised when others give you about the same credibility as we give Rob Enderle.