If they can make Snowden out to be a terrorist, or a supporter of terrorism, or someone who knew a terrorist, or knew someone who knew a terrorist, they will try to justify assassinating him.
You should get out more. There are millions of people who maybe thought this way a year ago, two years ago, who are starting to wonder very deeply about what they've been believing in, what they've been led to believe, and what to do about it.
"Stolen data"? Did the cops have any evidence to support this claim? If they did, they had recourse under "normal" laws. If they didn't, the only crime that was committed was by the cops.
What would motivate executives of large Internet corporations (the Verizons, the Googles, etc) to fight the government on this issue? Number one, they are not the ones who are threatened by government spying. Number two, they have no political disagreement with the purpose of the spying, which is done by a capitalist government in defense of capitalism. So, to repeat myself, don't hold your breath.
Kind of what I was going to say. WWII was probably the most violent event in human history. WWI was probably second. What did climate change have to do with it? The authors simply define violence to be something that is increasing today.
I suspect the sheer number of flops hasn't changed much over time. What has changed is the ginormous investment in some of them. As the long-term tendency of the rate of profit continues to decline, in film as in auto making or steel, the studios have to bet more and more on each throw of the dice in order to make enough *mass* of profit to cover for the declining *rate* of profit. I don't think the flops have anything to do with content and everything to do with statistics.
And they'll find a "legal" reason why that right has to be violated under certain circumstances. No law can protect you against what the ruling class wants to do to you.
The EU parliament is no more interested in protecting the rights of EU residents than the US congress is. They're just being anti-American. If they were serious, they'd stop information sharing with France.
Since the people who are doing the spying decide who's law-abiding, his assurances mean nothing. There are enough laws on the books to bring anyone--everyone--to trial. See the film "Sins of the Fathers" for an example, in this case how in the UK the innocent have nothing to fear. All you need to have done is roomed with, had a drink with, been in a study group with, someone the govt is going after and they'll be going after you too.
Obama says he's trying to wind down the "war on terrorism" but there wasn't a single word about putting an end to legalized government spying like this. Or the Patriot Act.
I don't even know why this story is being reported. It's like saying "the sun rose this morning." This is how capitalism operates, always has, always will. That's why it's called "capital"-ism--it's a system by and for capital, and the more you have, the more it's your system. If you don't like it, there's another system that works exactly the opposite way. It's called socialism. (don't bother with the anti-socialist rants, please, we've seen and heard them all for a hundred years--instead, explain to us how capitalism is going to save the world)
The reason lawsuits are so widespread is that it's an easier way to make money than investing. Investing is risky--requires borrowing money, for example, and then you have to actually invent something, and then sell it. Why go to all the trouble when you can grab a billion or so with no risk?
1. There's not a single fact in the article that even points to China. The Corps of Engineers doesn't say anything about China. So where does the OP subject line come from?
2. Why would you believe a story that can't even spell "dam" right when that's what it's about?
As Malcolm X said, "Don't talk to me about the South. The South starts at the Canadian border." Google "stop and frisk New York City" for further evidence. Any other attitude is liberal smugness.
Productivity as such isn't a particularly useful concept. What's important is, who gets the gains. The owners/employers are getting the gains and the workers, whose productivity has increased, are not. Thus the unprecedentedly high persistent unemployment in the US, downward pressure on wages, and all the social ills that follow from this (massive budget cuts in social programs like education, for example). As the long-term rate of profit continues to drift downward, these pressures will increase--for decades capitalists ("investors" if you prefer) were content with a lot of dollars as profits instead of looking at the rate of return. But for some time now the rate of return has been so low that the mass of dollars has become noticeably lower. We can expect more speedup, more on the job injuries, more West, Texas-type events because this is the face of productivity "gains." Gains for who?
"Anonymous" claims to be acting against Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. Did they consult with any Palestinians about this attack? Or do they share the official Israeli point of view, that Palestinians are not worthy of their own point of view?
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 2
Not sure what you mean by "Cuban model." In Cuba all education is free. All. Free.
Of course the Soviets knew about Mongoose. Everyone in Cuba did. The only people in the world who didn't were the US public, just like the Bay of Pigs.
"It is a well known fact"--perhaps you could provide a source? Then we'll see who knows what they're talking about. My point is that "well known facts" about Cuba in the US are 100 percent wrong.
As to the rafters, they resorted to these desperate measures because the US failed to live up to its agreement to provide 20,000 visas a year to Cubans to come to the US. The US prefers rafters risking their lives to people arriving safely on airplanes, makes Cuba look worse.
Slashdot Mirror
If they can make Snowden out to be a terrorist, or a supporter of terrorism, or someone who knew a terrorist, or knew someone who knew a terrorist, they will try to justify assassinating him.
And chemical warfare by Iraq against Iran during the 1980-89 war
"unless necessary"--you've just given it all away. Has any war ever been argued for as "not really necessary"?
You should get out more. There are millions of people who maybe thought this way a year ago, two years ago, who are starting to wonder very deeply about what they've been believing in, what they've been led to believe, and what to do about it.
False. No revolutionary movement worth of the name, from Marx to the July 26th Movement, did anything of the sort.
"Stolen data"? Did the cops have any evidence to support this claim? If they did, they had recourse under "normal" laws. If they didn't, the only crime that was committed was by the cops.
And expect more of them as the world capitalist political-economic crisis deepens.
What would motivate executives of large Internet corporations (the Verizons, the Googles, etc) to fight the government on this issue? Number one, they are not the ones who are threatened by government spying. Number two, they have no political disagreement with the purpose of the spying, which is done by a capitalist government in defense of capitalism. So, to repeat myself, don't hold your breath.
Kind of what I was going to say. WWII was probably the most violent event in human history. WWI was probably second. What did climate change have to do with it? The authors simply define violence to be something that is increasing today.
I suspect the sheer number of flops hasn't changed much over time. What has changed is the ginormous investment in some of them. As the long-term tendency of the rate of profit continues to decline, in film as in auto making or steel, the studios have to bet more and more on each throw of the dice in order to make enough *mass* of profit to cover for the declining *rate* of profit. I don't think the flops have anything to do with content and everything to do with statistics.
And they'll find a "legal" reason why that right has to be violated under certain circumstances. No law can protect you against what the ruling class wants to do to you.
The EU parliament is no more interested in protecting the rights of EU residents than the US congress is. They're just being anti-American. If they were serious, they'd stop information sharing with France.
Since the people who are doing the spying decide who's law-abiding, his assurances mean nothing. There are enough laws on the books to bring anyone--everyone--to trial. See the film "Sins of the Fathers" for an example, in this case how in the UK the innocent have nothing to fear. All you need to have done is roomed with, had a drink with, been in a study group with, someone the govt is going after and they'll be going after you too.
Obama says he's trying to wind down the "war on terrorism" but there wasn't a single word about putting an end to legalized government spying like this. Or the Patriot Act.
I don't even know why this story is being reported. It's like saying "the sun rose this morning." This is how capitalism operates, always has, always will. That's why it's called "capital"-ism--it's a system by and for capital, and the more you have, the more it's your system. If you don't like it, there's another system that works exactly the opposite way. It's called socialism. (don't bother with the anti-socialist rants, please, we've seen and heard them all for a hundred years--instead, explain to us how capitalism is going to save the world)
The reason lawsuits are so widespread is that it's an easier way to make money than investing. Investing is risky--requires borrowing money, for example, and then you have to actually invent something, and then sell it. Why go to all the trouble when you can grab a billion or so with no risk?
1. There's not a single fact in the article that even points to China. The Corps of Engineers doesn't say anything about China. So where does the OP subject line come from? 2. Why would you believe a story that can't even spell "dam" right when that's what it's about?
As Malcolm X said, "Don't talk to me about the South. The South starts at the Canadian border." Google "stop and frisk New York City" for further evidence. Any other attitude is liberal smugness.
Gigi Sohn is an... I'm afraid to say it for fear of a libel suit. Let's just say, in my humble opinion, she's at best naive.
Productivity as such isn't a particularly useful concept. What's important is, who gets the gains. The owners/employers are getting the gains and the workers, whose productivity has increased, are not. Thus the unprecedentedly high persistent unemployment in the US, downward pressure on wages, and all the social ills that follow from this (massive budget cuts in social programs like education, for example). As the long-term rate of profit continues to drift downward, these pressures will increase--for decades capitalists ("investors" if you prefer) were content with a lot of dollars as profits instead of looking at the rate of return. But for some time now the rate of return has been so low that the mass of dollars has become noticeably lower. We can expect more speedup, more on the job injuries, more West, Texas-type events because this is the face of productivity "gains." Gains for who?
As I noted previously, I doubted that Anonymous consulted with any of the Palestinians they claim to be supporting, and this proves it.
"Anonymous" claims to be acting against Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. Did they consult with any Palestinians about this attack? Or do they share the official Israeli point of view, that Palestinians are not worthy of their own point of view?
Not sure what you mean by "Cuban model." In Cuba all education is free. All. Free.
Of course the Soviets knew about Mongoose. Everyone in Cuba did. The only people in the world who didn't were the US public, just like the Bay of Pigs.
"It is a well known fact"--perhaps you could provide a source? Then we'll see who knows what they're talking about. My point is that "well known facts" about Cuba in the US are 100 percent wrong. As to the rafters, they resorted to these desperate measures because the US failed to live up to its agreement to provide 20,000 visas a year to Cubans to come to the US. The US prefers rafters risking their lives to people arriving safely on airplanes, makes Cuba look worse.