Slashdot Mirror
Obama Looks Down Under For Broadband Plan
oranghutan writes "The Obama administration is looking to the southern hemisphere for tips on how to improve the broadband situation in the US. The key telco adviser to the president, Sarah Crawford, has met with Australian telco analysts recently to find out how the Aussies are rolling out their $40 billion+ national broadband network. It is also rumored that the Obama administration is looking to the Dutch and New Zealand situations for inspiration too. The article quotes an Aussie analyst as saying: 'There needs to be a multiplier effect in the investment you make in telecoms — it should not just be limited to high-speed Internet. That is pretty new and in the US it is nearly communism, that sort of thinking. They are not used to that level of sharing and going away from free-market politics to a situation whereby you are looking at the national interest. In all my 30 years in the industry, this is the first time America is interested in listening to people like myself from outside.'"
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
Except, if you had Apple TV, they would tell you that you had full unfettered access to all the channels and Firewire was never blocked. A few weeks after the point of purchase they would reneg without disclosing any such changes, push down a "recommended" firmware update, and then inform you that they would enable firewire outputs only for channels which explicitly worked out agreements with them, and then you have to pay an additional $20/month to get that functionality back. Their excuse would be "well, we really only intended those features for customers living in buttfuckistan. Sorry, you're SOL" and even the people living in Buttfuckistan wouldn't get the functionality back without hacking the AppleTV receiver. Parallel: removal of tethering on the iPhone and adding of a tiny footnote on their advertising.
Comcast: Would advertise unlimited on-demand services, except they would cut you off after the first 15 movies every month, because you are an "unreasonably heavy user" clogging up their networks. How DARE you take them up on their unlimited free on-demand offer? Parallel: their "unlimited" internet isn't so unlimited and never was, despite being advertised as such.
Cox: would advertise the world, offer the most HDTV content, but in reality offer maybe 2-3 HD channels. Parallel: their cable system is probably the most antiquated digital network on the planet. My parents have Cox cable and it is severely lacking in features, the navigation sucks, and the guide still doesn't have the little PIP screen at the top right that every other cable provider has - or at least they didn't earlier this year when I visited.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Note: I don't take credit for this. This analogy has been floating around in e-mail for some time.
10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be, $10.00, each. The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay. Using an agreed upon formula the following payment arraignment was worked out based upon income.
Men 1-4 who made the least amount of money paid nothing.
Man 5 paid $ 1.00
Man 6 paid $ 3.00
Man 7 paid $ 7.00
Man 8 paid $12.00
Man 9 paid $18.00
Man 10 paid $59.00
After several weeks the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00. Their delimina was how to divide up the, $20.00. If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back but they never paid anything for the dinners. After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.
Original Payment New Payment $ Amount Saved % Saved
Men 1-4 paid $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00 0%
Man 5 paid $ 1.00 $ 0.00 $1.00 100%
Man 6 paid $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $1.00 33%
Man 7 paid $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $2.00 28%
Man 8 paid $12.00 $ 9.00 $3.00 25%
Man 9 paid $18.00 $14.00 $4.00 22%
Man 10 paid $59.00 $50.00 $9.00 15%
Once out side the men began to argue about the settlement. Man 5 said he only got, $1.00, while Man 10 received, $9.00. Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing. They said that the cut only benefited the rich and the poor got nothing. They were upset so they beat up Man 10 and left him. The next week they met for lunch as usual except man 10 did not show up. When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay even half of the bill.
In this story we see a simplified version of the Federal Income Tax. According to an article in the "New York Times" 80% of the taxes are paid by 20% of the people highest income people. Any time you have a tax cut the people who pay taxes are going to get the money. The next time you hear of a tax cut and the media tells you that the wealthy are getting all the money, remember they are paying the taxes.
Life is not for the lazy.