Slashdot Mirror

Presumably there will also be a review to determine what went wrong and to prevent it happening again.

What is the point of pushing the narrative that is demonstrably false? Jesus:

The woman who made false rape allegations against a Texas DPS trooper will not face any additional charges.
Girl made false accusation of rape after her ex-boyfriend rejected her
Woman Who Lied to Police About 3 Black Men Raping and Kidnapping Her Faces Zero Years in Prison
Woman who made false rape complaint receives suspended sentence

https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/is-cold-weather-racist-1821652706

"The police acted stupidly." -- BHO

They did act stupidly, and what's more, they acted like racist fuckbags. And we need to be calling them out on it, and they know they are in the wrong! Here, let me provide as evidence an article on the subject from Faux News. Why would I want to do such a thing? Because amongst their long list of repudiations from police (as if they were in any way relevant) there are absolutely zero counterarguments against Obama's statement which do not boil down rapidly to "we don't like to say bad things about police, and we don't like it when you say bad things about police, because we are police." Obama did make his statement with the "benefit of the facts", one of which is that black people are unfairly profiled and targeted for harassment because of the color of their skin.

Followed by a "beer summit" to try to play it off.

I googled beer summit and I discovered the following:

An independent panel with experts from across the nation published a report on June 30, 2010, which states that "Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates each missed opportunities to 'ratchet down' the situation and end it peacefully" and share responsibility for the controversial July 16 arrest. Crowley could have better explained how uncertain and potentially dangerous it is to respond to a serious crime-in-progress call and why this can result in a seemingly rude tone. Gates could have tried to understand Crowley's view of the situation and could have spoken respectfully to Crowley. The report cites research that shows people's feelings about a police encounter depend significantly on whether they feel the officer displays respect and courtesy.

IOW, an independent panel found that Gates acted inappropriately. "Do as you're told and you won't get shot" is a message for hostages, not citizens. Which do you consider yourself?

Look, racism is racism, no matter which way you point it; but white racism against blacks is different from black racism against whites because of the numbers involved. And white racism is relevant even when people never meet because of simple things like purchasing power. Where you spend your money is your most relevant vote (as rammed home by the story we're discussing right now) but how you actually vote is also important. And both where these racists spend their money and the way they vote are absolutely impacting black people.

Eh? This isn't some commentary based on "reverse racism" or whatever you were going with here. It's how elites manipulate the electorate to fight among themselves rather than uniting against the elite. We can look at two examples, from the same person, that cover both sides thanks to the wonderful Hillary Clinton:

When she was running around defending the draconian Clinton crime bill in the 90's, calling [minority] kids Superpredators. Playing up racist white resentment as well as any Dixiecrat. And then twenty years later on the flip side, her sycophants smeared Bernie Sanders as having a problem with minorities in the most brazen case of Swiftboating since the Bush Administration (almost entirely staffed with warmongering draft dodgers) smeared John Kerry as a coward for his Vietnam tours.

At these prices, $43 for water, I doubt the will get many sales.

In the US Uber seems to have evolved into a "Date-Rape On Wheels" service.

No doubt more so in India given the cultural acceptance of rape as normal behavior!

Italy wins!

Ha ha

But every once in a while the drivers are not rapists.

e.g. If you opposed his pro-abortion policies, you were a racist because you wanted to make it harder for low-income black women to get abortions.

What the hell is The Root?
The internet is the real problem. People find one site that has some extreme stuff they don't agree with and suddenly that's the opinion of everyone who doesn't completely agree with them.

For example, the Obama administration's drone program is something that is worth examining in a critical manner, but there is nothing racist in do so.

That's because the left was critical of the drone program, and since they're the ones who cry racism their own criticisms are immune.

I'd say it's hyperbole that any criticism of Obama was condemned as racism. But it did happen pretty frequently. e.g. If you opposed his pro-abortion policies, you were a racist because you wanted to make it harder for low-income black women to get abortions.

That's the problem with overplaying the racism or sexism card. Play it too often, and the general public (not the press, which is predominantly left-biased so this falls in one of their blind spots) begins to see what's happening, calls your bluff, and votes for Trump. (Note: I did not vote for Trump. I'm just agreeing that people tend to try to cast ambiguous divisive arguments in terms of unrelated "safe" arguments like racism to try to Godwin the debate.)

But it's not like Trump didn't say more and much worse things.

Irrelevant. Trumps idiocy does not excuse Hillary's. Otherwise you gotta let Trump play tit for tat as well - you want him to start with Superpredators or being terrified of black men wearing hoodies?

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

Slavery was law not because the government demanded it but because the (white) people did.

- slavery was law because it was acceptable for slavery to exist. There were black slave owners as well, by the way, plenty.

Today slavery is not acceptable for vast majority of people so to say that many businesses would have slaves simply because the laws regarding prohibition of slavery would disappear is disingenuous. There are *always some* people who would own slaves, laws or no laws. Vast majority of businesses today do not discriminate not because of laws but because it is bad for business.

My point stands, people must be able discriminate if they wish so, it is their right. Most people would not discriminate as business owners because it is bad for business. A business discriminating today will face PR nightmare in the social media and other news. IF they do not care about it then it must not be that relevant for vast majority of their customers because a business will very rarely take a hit to the bottom line for any type of ideology.

In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.

[#] You're also forgetting that slavery in America was an inborn condition. You weren't captured and made a slave. You were born into it. So one free black person didn't make his entire family free. Often blacks would buy their family members when they could.

54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.[#]

to say that many businesses would have slaves simply because the laws regarding prohibition of slavery would disappear is disingenuous

Good lord you argue like Thunderfoot. That's not at all what I said. That's disingenuous. I suggested that without those laws businesses wouldn't have integrated then. I'm not saying if you banished the laws businesses would stop integrating now.

Somehow this doesn't apply to Clinton. I've never understood that.

Well, I did just note on the red site that she has black "leaders" in her pocket. I still wonder exactly how it happened that a Goldwater Girl is now the darling of black "leadership." I haven't breached the topic with my colored co-workers because I'm too afraid of how that might backfire. I really am interested in knowing the why of it all, and I'd fully respect anything they said but c'est la vie I guess. (I'd campaign for Sanders, but at this point the primary is over and I'm not exactly a persuasive person anyway.) I get along very well with them for the most part. Get to hear interesting things when I take a smoke break. They don't go all hush-hush it's whitie, and I'd like to keep it that way. It irritates the piss out of me when white women go all hush-hush zomg it's an assigned male who looks female RAPIST INVADER BETTER BE CAREFUL!

I really don't take color into account as much as this comment might indicate. However, I've been horrified by what's been coming out about police treatment of blacks, and it's impossible to discuss these things without mentioning skin color. (Yes, I'm aware that oddly the riots only happen when it was a thug who was shot, but again, I'd like to know more. I just can't glean anything satisfactory from even sources like The Root . Eh, that place has too much celebrity news anyway, but I really don't know where to go.)

At any rate, I'm digressing far from the topic, but the Merry Christmas jihadists last year encouraged me to learn more about Kwanzaa. I normally just celebrate the solstice with a few like-minded friends, sometimes Saturnalia as well. It's not that I don't like Christmas. I'm a big fan of the Rankin-Bass specials. We don't exchange gifts for solstice (at least not since the economy went into the shitter) but we do manage to scrape together a holiday feast not much different from Christmas. It's just that the astronomical evidence present in the Bible tells us that celebrating the birth of a possible buddha should be a summer festival, not a winter one. So for me it makes more sense to roll that in with the 4th of July. (lol, the whole neighborhood is often covered by a smoky fog that doesn't dissipate until the 5th, and my friends and I like our explosives! We'll send up a few mortars, then somebody else will, and so on and so forth with many bottle rockets as well. Some years it rivals the city's presentation and I know that none of us are particularly wealthy.) Kwanzaa takes place during the time between Christmas and the Gregorian New Year. It struck me that a lot of what Kwanzaa is about also applies to the GBT community (no L since they've decided they stand apart). So I was thinking about this year maybe getting a kinara and replacing the black candle with a pink one.

And no, shouting "MERRY CHRISTMAS" at me doesn't harm me (it really just makes the jihadists look crazy in my opinion--my psychologist compared what a friend and I experienced last year to homeless bums in big cities shouting crazy nonsense at passers-by). At least shout "NI!" at me if you want to harm me somehow lol. However, if you politely wish me a merry Christmas, I will return the greeting and wish you one as well. I really have no idea where this idea that saying or hearing "merry Christmas" somehow causes pain to homosexuals. It's utterly crazy, but that's where we've all gone in the past couple years: utterly fucking out of our collective minds crazy.

This is what diversity is about, people! Appreciate the great wealth of human traditions, especially the wintertime ones, even if some traditions are newer than others! I've read some rumblings from other ACs that seem to indicate there's some kind of "multiculturalism" thing especially in Europe that means that different peoples shouldn't mix. I think different peoples should mix, as long as they stand behin

Holy crap....you are right.

http://www.theroot.com/article...

In all this BS discussion over the political correctness of the wording, the real story that was completely missed was the factual incorrectness of the numbers, not the wording.

Look at the graph again. There's 1.7 white deaths per black deaths. There's 6.3 white people per black person. It's very hard to get to those numbers without some actual racism.

BTW, if you're white and killed by the cops, the Black Lives Matter movement is probably one of your best bets for publicity. Take this article:
http://www.theroot.com/article...

That was not the original point. The original point was that the problems are so subtle that they can't be directly seen. Whatever you are on about is so far off the point being argued as to be in a land of delusion and smoked fish.

Nevermind that not only were blacks allowed to own property, but they decided to own black slaves instead of letting them go free.

In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves

If you want to bring up slavery, nothing is pretty and blacks are just as guilty as those awful white folk. They knew how bad it was and still as soon as they were freed they started buying up slaves and treating them to the same horrors that they endured.

There are some famous ones, of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Then you can check out this out for a big list:
http://www.theroot.com/photos/...

There are a lot more than that though. For instance, there are two from just this week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...

Yes, the most important racism out there is affirmative action.

Enhancing the role of the principal as a "coach" rather than a paperwork pusher, disciplinarian, or fund raiser is first.

Like this "Principal"?

http://nypost.com/2014/01/16/s...

Principals work for the Administration and whatever political flavor the current Administration is pushing. Good teachers work for the students, because they enjoy teaching and see a value in making chuildren smarter.

Of course if you have a religious ("Intelligent Design") bent or a politically correct bent (one must never admit that "Negro" was a word spoken in the English language - http://www.theroot.com/article... ), a heavy handed Principle is a good thing.

(Some more comments...)

These two "sides" are really just shaky alliances based on a bunch of different issues that frequently don't have that much to do with each other.

I agree, but this is mainly caused by so much power being held at the Federal level. There's no reason for New Hampshire Republicans and Mississippi Republicans to be the same party on an ideological level, but both need an alliance with the much more powerful Federal-level GOP in order to be viable. (The links in the previous sentence aren't meant as ideal representations of those state parties, but only to highlight the contrasts.)

There's no perfect solution to this, but moving power to more local levels would help. The powers of the Federal government should logically be limited to only the things that sub-national entities cannot possibly do, which is exactly how this nation was originally structured.

The long-term ideal is that all power is held by individuals and voluntarily-established institutions, but, until we get there, competitive local government is better than one homogeneous empire "from sea to shining sea" (and beyond).

A country that encompassed only the Bible Belt states wouldn't have abortion as an issue any more, because they'd probably just ban it and be done with it, so they'd move on to other issues for political parties to distinguish themselves on.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think any U.S. state would ever actually ban abortion, even if it had the political power to do so. It'd be like King Cnut trying to command the tide!

At present levels of technology, banning abortions translates to also banning certain medications, and even nutritional supplements (i.e. vitamin C)! As technology advances, abortion-inducing medications and devices would become ever-easier to self-administer, even for late-term abortions. They would also have to somehow ban "leaving the state while pregnant and then coming back not pregnant" (and without a baby, or adoption papers, or a medical report of a legitimate miscarriage, etc). Imagine all cross-border roads, airports, and seaports of a state asking all passing women and girls to pee into a cup! And the adoption / "legitimate miscarriage" reports would have to be carefully scrutinized, as countless out-of-state doctors would be willing to forge such reports with no harm to their own reputation. Tourism and business investment into the prohibitionist states would obviously go down, and goods and services produced in that state would be boycotted by many. And it's hard to imagine any woman wanting to get an abortion actually being deterred by all this - the cost of leaving the state would perpetually decline, and the number of charities willing to help women trapped in prohibitionist states would increase. Some women would simply leave the state and not come back. Population growth would likely only decline as the result - which is the very opposite of what many abortion prohibitionists had wanted! All this would obviously decimate the prohibitionist states' economy until they give up and get rid of such stupid laws!

Laws come from reality, and are understood through science (including economics). Human legislators cannot make up social or economic laws, they can only recognize them or fail to recognize them - like an engineer can recognize or fail to recognize certain physical laws of nature. The closer we come to understanding and applying those laws, the more functional is the resulting system.

Nature, to be commanded, needs to be obeyed.

The number of states that's optimal is highly debateable.

Of course, the divisions are largely arbitrary. But one functional basis for state divisions ar

People left England because of religious oppression.... Then you know what they did?
They set up their own theocratic territories which doubled down on the behaviors they had left England to escape.

People do this stuff all the time.

Black people were horribly oppressed in the US before the Civil War (slavery), and after it too (2nd class citizens until the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 1960s). Yet they're some of the biggest proponents of oppressing gay people; they were instrumental in pushing through Prop 8 in California, and prominent black people who've come out as gay say their biggest problems were with other black people. The Root has lots of articles about this:
http://thegrio.com/2012/02/07/don-lemon-being-black-and-gay-is-about-the-worst-thing-you-can-be-in-black-culture/
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/don-lemon-yes-black-community-homophobic
http://www.theroot.com/views/will-blacks-accept-gay-marriage
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-men-and-black-and-women-who-love-them

Similarly, Jews were horribly oppressed in Europe during WWII (death camps), yet many of them are just like the Taliban, spitting on 8-year-old girls who dare to "dress immodestly" and go to school:
http://jezebel.com/5871293/orthodox-israelis-spit-on-whorish-8+year+old-girl-for-going-to-school
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/israeli-girl-at-center-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html?pagewanted=all

You'd think that people who were previously the subject of horrible oppression (and not very long ago to boot, within many peoples' living memories or at least their parents') would be the first to stand up for the rights of others who are oppressed, but nope, that's not the way we humans work. With us humans, it's all "I got mine, so fuck you".

People left England because of religious oppression.... Then you know what they did?
They set up their own theocratic territories which doubled down on the behaviors they had left England to escape.

People do this stuff all the time.

Black people were horribly oppressed in the US before the Civil War (slavery), and after it too (2nd class citizens until the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 1960s). Yet they're some of the biggest proponents of oppressing gay people; they were instrumental in pushing through Prop 8 in California, and prominent black people who've come out as gay say their biggest problems were with other black people. The Root has lots of articles about this:
http://thegrio.com/2012/02/07/don-lemon-being-black-and-gay-is-about-the-worst-thing-you-can-be-in-black-culture/
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/don-lemon-yes-black-community-homophobic
http://www.theroot.com/views/will-blacks-accept-gay-marriage
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-men-and-black-and-women-who-love-them

Similarly, Jews were horribly oppressed in Europe during WWII (death camps), yet many of them are just like the Taliban, spitting on 8-year-old girls who dare to "dress immodestly" and go to school:
http://jezebel.com/5871293/orthodox-israelis-spit-on-whorish-8+year+old-girl-for-going-to-school
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/israeli-girl-at-center-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html?pagewanted=all

You'd think that people who were previously the subject of horrible oppression (and not very long ago to boot, within many peoples' living memories or at least their parents') would be the first to stand up for the rights of others who are oppressed, but nope, that's not the way we humans work. With us humans, it's all "I got mine, so fuck you".

People left England because of religious oppression.... Then you know what they did?
They set up their own theocratic territories which doubled down on the behaviors they had left England to escape.

People do this stuff all the time.

Black people were horribly oppressed in the US before the Civil War (slavery), and after it too (2nd class citizens until the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 1960s). Yet they're some of the biggest proponents of oppressing gay people; they were instrumental in pushing through Prop 8 in California, and prominent black people who've come out as gay say their biggest problems were with other black people. The Root has lots of articles about this:
http://thegrio.com/2012/02/07/don-lemon-being-black-and-gay-is-about-the-worst-thing-you-can-be-in-black-culture/
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/don-lemon-yes-black-community-homophobic
http://www.theroot.com/views/will-blacks-accept-gay-marriage
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-men-and-black-and-women-who-love-them

Similarly, Jews were horribly oppressed in Europe during WWII (death camps), yet many of them are just like the Taliban, spitting on 8-year-old girls who dare to "dress immodestly" and go to school:
http://jezebel.com/5871293/orthodox-israelis-spit-on-whorish-8+year+old-girl-for-going-to-school
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/israeli-girl-at-center-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html?pagewanted=all

You'd think that people who were previously the subject of horrible oppression (and not very long ago to boot, within many peoples' living memories or at least their parents') would be the first to stand up for the rights of others who are oppressed, but nope, that's not the way we humans work. With us humans, it's all "I got mine, so fuck you".

your friendly political campaigns efforts to use robocalls to discourage minority voters from attending polls, slander their opponents before the the big vote, or piss you off before supper sleep or sex will remain unaffected by this regulation. should you wish to file a complaint please direct messages to the round smelly bin in your home, or in petrol form to the windows of the appropriate politician accordingly.

regards,
commission of communications.

The Root:

SLRP: The suggested list retail price of a CD is currently $16.98, while the standard wholesale price -- what retail stores pay the label per CD -- is about $10. Once the retailer gets the CD, they can sell it for however much they'd like -- hence "suggested." Artist's royalties are a percentage of the retail price. Superstars can get 20 percent of the SLRP, but most get 12 percent to 14 percent.

I've seen other estimates which are lower, but this was the only citation I could find for now. Online sales through the record label usually pay a few percent units less.

Half-pint HAL wrote:

You may be interested to know that most musicians I know are still selling CDs. In fact, most musicians I know still say that direct sales of their CDs at concerts is the main source of income (they get over 50% from direct sales).

Perhaps, but a study from the Norwegian School of Management shows that CD sales have never accounted for more than 20% of the income of music artists, on the average. It's based on Norwegian artists, but the figures shouldn't be drastically different for other developed nations.

Half-pint HAL wrote:

Music is a musician's business, and taking away the ability to profit from music takes away their ability to profit.

I'd say that music is a way of life, and getting paid for it is just a way to be able to do it full-time. The supply of artists has always been greater than the demand for them, and most artists have never been able to support themselves from their music.

That being said, artists are able to produce more than twice as many albums today as ten years ago:

Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers. While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008). (Harvard study cited by Michael Geist)

So you're the blackest white person around, then? Goody for you.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with 'white' people.
Uhhh...yes there is buddy. Where, might I ask, exactly did you study racial theory? The concept of Whiteness is innately bound with racism. Maybe you weren't educated in an institute of higher learning but fortunately others were (Windows admin classes at ITT Tech don't count, unfortunately). "Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." --Susan Sontag[1]. Sontag was a highly respected intellectual and her attitudes are widely accepted today at the highest levels. Ask around at the department of racial studies at your friendly neighborhood university. You might learn something. But then again, maybe not.

[1] Sontag later apologized for this statement, saying it slandered cancer victims.

Decided not to moderate and simply prove you wrong. One idiot making stupid comments doesn't mean the tea party are racists as a group no more than some leftist anarchist looting stores makes all liberals into whackjobs. Frankly, I call anyone who says otherwise a racist themselves.

http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/04/15/black-tea-party-member/
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-tea-partiers-speak
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/black_tea_party_express_tour_t.html
http://www.theroot.com/views/should-black-folks-give-tea-party-second-look?page=0,1&hpid=topnews
http://www.theroot.com/views/who-you-callin-uncle-tom
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html (this is the article that MSNBC cut apart to show gun-toting crazies at tea party rallies - except that it was a black man carrying that weapon freely and nobody thought he was a danger, kinda shoots your theory down doesn't it?)

Certain groups are terrified of what the Tea Party stands for, and they've played the race card in order to try and stop it. The fact that you believe it and espouse this shit means you're just a mindless patsy that can't think for yourself.

Decided not to moderate and simply prove you wrong. One idiot making stupid comments doesn't mean the tea party are racists as a group no more than some leftist anarchist looting stores makes all liberals into whackjobs. Frankly, I call anyone who says otherwise a racist themselves.

http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/04/15/black-tea-party-member/
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-tea-partiers-speak
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/black_tea_party_express_tour_t.html
http://www.theroot.com/views/should-black-folks-give-tea-party-second-look?page=0,1&hpid=topnews
http://www.theroot.com/views/who-you-callin-uncle-tom
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html (this is the article that MSNBC cut apart to show gun-toting crazies at tea party rallies - except that it was a black man carrying that weapon freely and nobody thought he was a danger, kinda shoots your theory down doesn't it?)

Certain groups are terrified of what the Tea Party stands for, and they've played the race card in order to try and stop it. The fact that you believe it and espouse this shit means you're just a mindless patsy that can't think for yourself.

Decided not to moderate and simply prove you wrong. One idiot making stupid comments doesn't mean the tea party are racists as a group no more than some leftist anarchist looting stores makes all liberals into whackjobs. Frankly, I call anyone who says otherwise a racist themselves.

http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/04/15/black-tea-party-member/
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-tea-partiers-speak
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/black_tea_party_express_tour_t.html
http://www.theroot.com/views/should-black-folks-give-tea-party-second-look?page=0,1&hpid=topnews
http://www.theroot.com/views/who-you-callin-uncle-tom
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html (this is the article that MSNBC cut apart to show gun-toting crazies at tea party rallies - except that it was a black man carrying that weapon freely and nobody thought he was a danger, kinda shoots your theory down doesn't it?)

Certain groups are terrified of what the Tea Party stands for, and they've played the race card in order to try and stop it. The fact that you believe it and espouse this shit means you're just a mindless patsy that can't think for yourself.

That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.

Another way of saying it is: $87,500 per person before taxes. Which isn't really as shabby as the $45k number sounds. Probably self-employment taxes apply, but those were (presumably) accounted for in the article. I believe that is considerably above the minimum wage they imply....

The article illustrates the accounting, but doesn't point strongly at the "unfair" portion. My own take-away on the unfairness is that the performers are taking on 100% of the production and promotion costs, the label 100% of the distribution costs, and they split the video production costs. The distribution costs amount to only 50% of the total costs, but the label takes 80% of the gross. AND they (typically) take the copyrights on the song, limiting what further use the performers can make of it.

Boo hoo, performers are getting shafted by the labels. Yeah, we get it. And techdirt's source article explains those points in more detail. So how about an article or advice for artists about which contract terms are most rapacious? Or about labels that operate in a different fashion? I'm sure some of the smaller labels out there have to have more friendly terms, with at least some artists.

How do musical artists stay afloat in a dodgy economy?

Of course, thanks to the freewheeling Web, where there's always a workaround, sometimes Terrasson doesn't get paid anything for his music -- like the time in 2007, when he released Mirror, a solo piano recording. Within 24 hours, he says, people were downloading it for free from a Russian site that could not be shut down remotely.

If population growth is the only thing that improves, I might agree with you. Is that really the case though? What about measuring the amount of sick people that need treatment?

I'm not talking about the population, but about the amount of people to feed.

If you have to feed 10 million hungry people today, and 12 million next year, there is a problem. That can be either that the population grew, or that people are overall worse off and in more need of help. In the first case, the increased population is still failing to produce enough food, in the second, the food isn't really helpful. In any case something is wrong that isn't getting fixed by just sending free food to the population.

You act as if people is merely a burden rather than a resource.

If those people were a resource then next year there would be less people to feed, as those extra people would be growing food, for instance.

Only if all the following conditions exist:
There actually IS a clothing industry in whatever place we're talking about.

Making clothes is easy. I'm not talking about designer clothes here. Some cloth, thread and a sewing machine can go a long way. Your grandma didn't need a room full of machinery to knit a sweater.

But, even that goes nowhere when you ship truckloads of your old stuff and dump it on those people for free. What little industry was there dies, then they start needing those donations because you just drove the producers out of business.

The clothing is actually donated rather than someone just buying clothing locally.

Lots of it is. I've seen many notices in many places along the lines of "Leave your old clothes here, we'll pick them up and send where needed". Apparently more than enough to screw up the industry as per the above article.

The people who can't afford clothing would have somehow went out and bought it rather than continue to wear rags.

Yes, but that's not a sustainable economy. Short term, somebody gets old designer jeans from the US. Long term, that means they don't need to buy locally, so the local maker goes out of business. In turn, that local merchant now isn't earning money to spend in the local economy. If they try to grow food, well, you dump truckloads of that for free in there as well.

Wow, you had me going until the racist comment in the last line. If you're going to parrot Fox News talking points, you'd better be clean yourself.