If you're going to make claims like that, you bear the burden of proof. It sounds like you're just throwing around opinions as facts because the Best Buy made a decision that you do not find convenient. I'd really like to see a study that working from home full-time is net beneficial to productivity.
Does anyone seem to realize that work from home is not being banned, but PERMANENTLY working from home? There is a huge difference. Casual work from home is much different than never seeing your coworkers. Is permanent working from home a scapegoat? Perhaps, but it's not unreasonable that troubled companies need all hands on deck while at their most vulnerable.
Sure, they use it generate interest. I certainly hope they do. But what if they did something else instead?
What if the rumor-mongered to generate ideas?
Apple seems to do it all the time now too. Maybe it's just looking for a conspiracy when there isn't one, but think about it. What a great business model:
1. Think about something that people are dissatisfied with and is lagging technologically. 2. Use your reputation and clout to monger a rumor about an "upcoming" product. 3. Cherry pick ideas generating by hundreds of people. 4. Develop and polish product. 5. Profit!
Seems pretty simple to me. You off-load all of your speculative R&D efforts onto the public. That is probably the most cost-intensive portion of any company that relies on innovation. Brilliant!
With all that's going on in the world, this is what we are paying our legislators to address? When are the next elections again? Come on people, we have to be able to do better than this.
I'm amused to observe how companies are villainized. Considering companies are run by people, is it not unreasonable to think that maybe a company would not expect this much of a charge that they would have some kind of mechanism to prevent against it? It's easy to look back on a bad situation and criticize a company for not having measures, but considering I think it's absurd that such a large bill could even be assigned, I'd have to think that there are people in AT&T that would think similarly.
All I know is that I present numbers and everyone else here presents anecdotes about how the IT industry is imploding. It's not. There are tons of jobs out there. You have to just be willing to do what it takes to get them. Too many people have this sense of entitlement as if companies are going to be knocking on doors to find people. That's not the way it works.
Fair enough. My only two responses to that would be how many of those 500,000 are call center jobs? Also, a lot of IT jobs simply can't be farmed out because of security controls.
My point is more though that there are plenty of jobs out there, but you might need to do more than just throw your resume out there and demand employment. I also think that the disadvantages of off-shoring are becoming much, much more apparent now and it is not going to be as attractive as it once was.
Off-shoring seems to be just a bunch of FUD designed by the few that have lost their jobs as well as fear-mongering isolationists. In the book What Color is Your Parachute?, it is said that we appear to have only lost 500,000 jobs out of the total 143,700,000 jobs that we have. That is 0.348%. That is so small, it really doesn't matter. With all of the horror stories you hear of off-shoring, it almost seems like it's going to be a matter of time before people realize that is isn't all that it is made out to be.
If you lost your job, I'm sorry that it happened, but it shouldn't be too hard if you are at least a decent worker and are able to not be totally asocial. Go read What Color is Your Parachute? if you need help. It's a great book.
I don't know much about India's economic situation, but at first glance it sounds like this is going to cause a huge amount of economic stratification.
Even if you don't agree with the poster, and I am not saying that I necessarily do either, I think that this post is an interesting angle on the situation and it isn't even worded to be inflammatory!
Okay, we need to hammer a few things out here with regard to this post. I'm not here to make excuses for anyone, I just try to strive for balance. Even though I am a registered Republican, I am going to probably going to be switching parties to the Democrats for logistical reasons. I align with the Libertarians the most, but not being able to participate in the Democratic primaries in Philadelphia is basically ensuring that one's voice is not heard. Now, let's go to line-by-line.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I see a lot of this around. I don't understand how people can be so dumb as to think that Democrats are the heavy spenders.
I have to ask you if this comment is serious or not. Is it? There is no way to say this nicely. To assert that Democrats are not heavy spenders is just absurd, naive, and probably a result of being force-fed your party's propaganda. And we can throw some cognitive dissonance in there for good measure. Entitlement programs make up a monstrous percentage of the Federal budget and most of these programs are championed by Democrats. As a recent post of mine has shown, Social Security and Medicare alone make up 42% of the Federal budget. Democrats' spending is so big in these two programs alone that they have their own deductions from one's pay. That's huge and it does include other huge programs like Medicaid and Welfare. And it does not include the national healthcare program that the Democrats have been wanting so badly.
The Republicans have, ever since Reagan, been trying to outdo each other by lowering tax but raising spending. See here for a discussion. It is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are the big spenders.
Do you have a source or any kind of evidence for these assertions? While that article may sound nice, it is light on data with only two numbers and leans heavily on anecdotes. It's also ironic that you later criticize McCain while the article defends him as being one of the last of the old guard in terms of fiscally responsible Republicans.
Saying that Republicans are big spenders without pointing out how they spend is pointless. It is no secret that they love spending on defense, but what else do they spend money on? Historically, wars are expensive. So much so that taxes are sometimes levied to pay for them. I am not a fan of how Republicans have been spending in general, but what I want is to find out if Republicans spend like Democrats do when one strips out defense.
And if you believe that you can run a deficit for decades without harming anything, then you're a fool.
I agree. But with a prospective program like national healthcare, how can you possibly shield Democrats from making the very problem that you decry so much as becoming much, much worse? The Democrats continue to stonewall Social Security reform. Social Security and Medicare are simply unsustainable and supporting the programs in their current form implicitly approving more spending.
And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax.
So you would rather have someone who is able to admit that they are not strong in an area or instead have someone who lies about it, only have to deal with repercussions of that later down the road?
At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
That is almost totally wrong. While he did oppose it recently on the federal level, he voted for such a measure on the state level and was so patronizing as to joke (at least I was assuming he was joking) that they should have recognition signs put on the gas pumps that would note the legislature's role in the suspension of the tax holiday. When Obama tried to act so econom
It is painful reading opinions like this, mainly because of how much they are distortions of reality. It's just like hearing Republicans who say that Bill Clinton was a disaster as President. Opinions like these seem to be the result of so many being force-fed by their preferred political party and that party's respective pundits and as well as its special interest groups. That said, let's move to the line-by-line.
That would probably be on the grounds of looking at how the size of government changes under Republicans.
Source? If many Republicans had their way with entitlement programs, I am fairly sure that the Federal budget would get at least cut in half. Social Security and Medicare are 42% of the budget alone. I am not aruging for or against those programs. I'm just saying that if the Republicans want to cut 50% of the current total budget and even double a portion that comprises 25% of the current budget, that still results in a net loss of 25% of the overall budget.
Now why hasn't this happened? I am not going to speculate as to why except for the following possible way. In general, it is safe to say that Republicans love defense and hate entitlement programs. I think that it it is also safe to say that Democrats love entitlement programs and hate rampant defense spending. Now where does that middle ground leave? If the most good that Congress could agree on was defense, then it needed to be done anyway. Is that a rationalization? Maybe, but I think it's reasonable to assume that Republicans do want smaller government, but the current political process will not allow for it.
And as for "defense", that's what they call it but there is nothing defensive about most of the budget.
Source? Sounds like a conspiracy theory more than anything. Since when are tanks, planes, Humvees, missiles, bullets, guns, and everything else that they buy not defensive? Also, I think that the little piece of research that we now call the Internet was derived from the United States military. I think it's safe to say that has been beneficial to civilization. If we were so shortsighted as to the benefits of research being done, we would not have much of the technology that we do today. I guess we can consider a janitor at a Naval support center to not be "defensive", but at the same time that also seems like a necessary cost to an organization like the Navy.
The American people largely don't benefit from those expenditures, the defense contractors do.
Really? Have a source for that? Also, who comprises those defense companies and what implications does that composition have? I have some facts, right here, right now. A great number of Americans directly or indirectly benefits from our massive military spending whether you like it or not because of the nature of that spending. Much of it is classified and it simply can not be outsourced to other countries. Companies like AeroVironment, Boeing, Ceradyne, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and United Technologies together directly employ hundreds of thousands of people from engineers to factory workers to janitors. Then you have the subcontractors that are indirectly benefit from a contract being awarded. And then you have all of the research that universities do.
There are also the ancillary effects of all those people spending their money that are not directly related to employment or spending. What about all of the pension plans, IRAs, 401(k) plans, and other investment accounts that all rely on public companies that benefit from this defense spending? What about all of the investments in companies that rely on the spending of the direct and indirect beneficiaries of government contracts? The economy really is an ecosystem and destroying one part of it impacts the whole.
Also, don't forget that the government taxes just about everything. This basically means that every dollar they spend, they can received a sign
But most republican politicians seem to like bigger government! I'm so confused...
On what grounds? If you mean in terms of defense, sure. But what about Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and simplification of the tax code? I am not arguing one way or the other, but if you eliminated Social Security and Medicare alone, you would decrease Federal spending by at least 42%!
That's why I put the term in quotes. I hate using terms like that as I think that it just leads to political cheerleading and jeerleading, much like what we get today. Just read this article. It's absurd.
As for your contention about not accepting the media as "liberal", why do you think there is such a large disparity between Fox News and the rest of them? Either most media outlets are actually truly centrist (highly improbable) and Fox News is far "right" or they are on opposite sides of the fence. I specifically referenced newspapers too for a reason. They almost always, at least in the Philadelphia area, seem to endorse the Democratic candidates. It's astounding at just how one-sided they are.
You also argue that companies' board would not allow such a thing to happen, to which I have four responses. The first is the principle of editorial independence. The second is the nature of business. Boards and managements tend to only care about a few things: the top line, the bottom line, guidance, and share price. You keep all of them high and they are happy. Most executives do their jobs or attempt to at least; they leave politics aside. If they get numbers doing one thing, they do it. In a similar example, look at how much media programming changes. NBC doesn't keep an executive's favorite show on and CBS doesn't keep an executive's favorite radio station format. They change all the time. Third, executives aren't as one sided as people assume. You'd be surprised at the amount of business people that are not totally conservative. The fourth is the nature of journalism. From grade school all the way through media corporations, those involved with journalism tend to be overwhelmingly "liberal". It's just the way it works. Artists are similar. As are educators. Those are fair generalizations. The only divergence from this that I have observed is in specialty media outlets, such as "conservative" oriented media or business media.
10 year ago we were told to not bother drilling because it wouldn't make an impact until that long. Well, here we are, 10 years later and energy problems are coming to a head.
Slightly off topic, but I just love how Democrats think that the Republicans are causing this energy crisis. They want to drill. It's simply supply and demand. Flood the market, it will solve the problem. Can the Democrats just be honest and say that high energy prices will actually lead to the development of viable alternatives? Oh wait, they don't need to be because they can have their cake and eat it too. They get to champion the environment while accusing the Republicans of causing the mess and benefiting from higher oil prices. People need to take their tin foil hats off and realize what's actually happening.
Just so I'm clear, I actually like higher energy prices because it will lead to development of viable alternatives so we don't need to import all of this oil. T. Boone Pickens is right too. We need to stop this massive transfer of wealth. This is especially true when you consider who we are transferring this wealth to and how it appears to be spent.
I was baffled by this quote as well. With exception of Fox News, I think it's generally accepted that most of the media has a "liberal" bias. It cracks me up whenever you see "liberal" complaining that the media is too far "right" or they say that it isn't biased at all.
Have they ever taken the time to research the political stance of their anchors? It's not something I really do, but it comes up occasionally and I have trouble naming more than a few anchors who are not "liberal". Have they ever read a the op/ed section of a typical newspaper?
Just because one's views become normalized in the minds of an individual does not mean that they become the baseline or the middle. To think otherwise is just absurd. Unless one is literally 100% moderate and unbiased, which is pretty much impossible.
I honestly just read over the word. I just assumed to meant anti-ethical.
When I say "practical Libertarianism", I mean basically what you said, Get rid of the 5-20% of the extreme views and I'm set. The less government, the better. I don't need to be micromanaged. I don't think other people need to either.
Libertarianism advocates for the right to exploit? While people certainly exploit others and it is unfortunate, one is also able to exploit themselves. That's why I said practical Libertarianism. You can't have anarchy.
As for that being "antiethical", I think it's "antiethical" to continue to use systems that simply don't work and don't allow for the most and best freedom of choice.
We expect conservatives to try to erode our rights, and expect the liberals to fight for them.
While I don't want to get into a shouting match over this, I do want to say that this statement is not fair. This is especially true when you consider perspective. A right to one person may not be viewed as a right to another or, worse, they don't value that right and then step all over it with no regard to others.
If you don't think that things like the nationalization of retirement and healthcare, as well as the desire to control wealth, trade, commerce, the rights of the unborn, guns, and various media content do not affect both individual and corporate rights on multiple levels, then you are sorely mistaken. Just because you don't value them doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily worth valuing.
Also, my contention that who is in power affects what is happening. Just as liberals assail conservatives now for racking up debt in the name of national security, liberal candidates are planning huge government spending programs that conservatives say is reckless. Also, I'm sure that Al Gore would have supported something like the PATRIOT Act as George W. Bush had. Whether or not you like it, having the president sit on his hands after one of the most shocking events in a country's history would have been ludicrous politically.
The more and more I see of politics, the more and more I think that both major parties are wrong. I think that a practical Libertarianism is best. If you chose to not feel that way, that is fine, but you better have some robust reason to back up your position. Whatever you do, just don't reject it out of utter cognitive dissonance!
I think that this is a case of New Yorkers thinking that they run the world, so they are going to influence it in any way that they can. Unless ESRB labels are proven to be inadequate, which I think they are not, how can a new label really bring anything to the table?
Parents just need to go back to parenting. The government can not be assumed to have to make up for the shortcomings of parents. Until people stop projecting blame on everyone else, the problems that we face are unlikely to abate.
This is not a position, just an observation. I think it's very ironic that there are so many people that accuse "conservatives" of shredding the Constitution when you have things like this happening in New York, which is noted for being very "liberal". McCain voted for the PATRIOT Act and Obama voted for FISA. My point isn't the criticize one or the other. My point is that politicians are politicians. Little is it realized that both sides of the aisle vote and some form of a majority must be reached. The two major parties in America seem to be not as dissimilar as one would expect. This is particularly true when they come into a position of power.
The fact of the matter is that cognitive dissonance totally pervades our society on just about every level. While I can't speak for everyone, I highly doubt this phenomenon is limited to America. Politics has devolved into a bloodmatch of two teams where, even though no one wins, the crowd riots no matter what. Well, that is to assume that it was ever at a higher state to begin with!
Can we please stop cheerleading the politicians that are handpicked for us by each respective party's machine? Perhaps if we held our representation accountable on some level that things will get better. Then again, maybe that is just asking for too much.
Slashdot Mirror
False. Comcast owns NBCUniversal and is definitely the established leadership.
If you're going to make claims like that, you bear the burden of proof. It sounds like you're just throwing around opinions as facts because the Best Buy made a decision that you do not find convenient. I'd really like to see a study that working from home full-time is net beneficial to productivity.
Does anyone seem to realize that work from home is not being banned, but PERMANENTLY working from home? There is a huge difference. Casual work from home is much different than never seeing your coworkers. Is permanent working from home a scapegoat? Perhaps, but it's not unreasonable that troubled companies need all hands on deck while at their most vulnerable.
Sure, they use it generate interest. I certainly hope they do. But what if they did something else instead?
What if the rumor-mongered to generate ideas?
Apple seems to do it all the time now too. Maybe it's just looking for a conspiracy when there isn't one, but think about it. What a great business model:
1. Think about something that people are dissatisfied with and is lagging technologically.
2. Use your reputation and clout to monger a rumor about an "upcoming" product.
3. Cherry pick ideas generating by hundreds of people.
4. Develop and polish product.
5. Profit!
Seems pretty simple to me. You off-load all of your speculative R&D efforts onto the public. That is probably the most cost-intensive portion of any company that relies on innovation. Brilliant!
With all that's going on in the world, this is what we are paying our legislators to address? When are the next elections again? Come on people, we have to be able to do better than this.
lol
I'm amused to observe how companies are villainized. Considering companies are run by people, is it not unreasonable to think that maybe a company would not expect this much of a charge that they would have some kind of mechanism to prevent against it? It's easy to look back on a bad situation and criticize a company for not having measures, but considering I think it's absurd that such a large bill could even be assigned, I'd have to think that there are people in AT&T that would think similarly.
All I know is that I present numbers and everyone else here presents anecdotes about how the IT industry is imploding. It's not. There are tons of jobs out there. You have to just be willing to do what it takes to get them. Too many people have this sense of entitlement as if companies are going to be knocking on doors to find people. That's not the way it works.
Fair enough. My only two responses to that would be how many of those 500,000 are call center jobs? Also, a lot of IT jobs simply can't be farmed out because of security controls.
My point is more though that there are plenty of jobs out there, but you might need to do more than just throw your resume out there and demand employment. I also think that the disadvantages of off-shoring are becoming much, much more apparent now and it is not going to be as attractive as it once was.
Off-shoring seems to be just a bunch of FUD designed by the few that have lost their jobs as well as fear-mongering isolationists. In the book What Color is Your Parachute?, it is said that we appear to have only lost 500,000 jobs out of the total 143,700,000 jobs that we have. That is 0.348%. That is so small, it really doesn't matter. With all of the horror stories you hear of off-shoring, it almost seems like it's going to be a matter of time before people realize that is isn't all that it is made out to be.
If you lost your job, I'm sorry that it happened, but it shouldn't be too hard if you are at least a decent worker and are able to not be totally asocial. Go read What Color is Your Parachute? if you need help. It's a great book.
I don't know much about India's economic situation, but at first glance it sounds like this is going to cause a huge amount of economic stratification.
Does anyone have any more information on this?
Flamebait? What?
Even if you don't agree with the poster, and I am not saying that I necessarily do either, I think that this post is an interesting angle on the situation and it isn't even worded to be inflammatory!
Okay, we need to hammer a few things out here with regard to this post. I'm not here to make excuses for anyone, I just try to strive for balance. Even though I am a registered Republican, I am going to probably going to be switching parties to the Democrats for logistical reasons. I align with the Libertarians the most, but not being able to participate in the Democratic primaries in Philadelphia is basically ensuring that one's voice is not heard. Now, let's go to line-by-line.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I see a lot of this around. I don't understand how people can be so dumb as to think that Democrats are the heavy spenders.
I have to ask you if this comment is serious or not. Is it? There is no way to say this nicely. To assert that Democrats are not heavy spenders is just absurd, naive, and probably a result of being force-fed your party's propaganda. And we can throw some cognitive dissonance in there for good measure. Entitlement programs make up a monstrous percentage of the Federal budget and most of these programs are championed by Democrats. As a recent post of mine has shown, Social Security and Medicare alone make up 42% of the Federal budget. Democrats' spending is so big in these two programs alone that they have their own deductions from one's pay. That's huge and it does include other huge programs like Medicaid and Welfare. And it does not include the national healthcare program that the Democrats have been wanting so badly.
The Republicans have, ever since Reagan, been trying to outdo each other by lowering tax but raising spending. See here for a discussion. It is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are the big spenders.
Do you have a source or any kind of evidence for these assertions? While that article may sound nice, it is light on data with only two numbers and leans heavily on anecdotes. It's also ironic that you later criticize McCain while the article defends him as being one of the last of the old guard in terms of fiscally responsible Republicans.
Saying that Republicans are big spenders without pointing out how they spend is pointless. It is no secret that they love spending on defense, but what else do they spend money on? Historically, wars are expensive. So much so that taxes are sometimes levied to pay for them. I am not a fan of how Republicans have been spending in general, but what I want is to find out if Republicans spend like Democrats do when one strips out defense.
And if you believe that you can run a deficit for decades without harming anything, then you're a fool.
I agree. But with a prospective program like national healthcare, how can you possibly shield Democrats from making the very problem that you decry so much as becoming much, much worse? The Democrats continue to stonewall Social Security reform. Social Security and Medicare are simply unsustainable and supporting the programs in their current form implicitly approving more spending.
And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax.
So you would rather have someone who is able to admit that they are not strong in an area or instead have someone who lies about it, only have to deal with repercussions of that later down the road?
At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
That is almost totally wrong. While he did oppose it recently on the federal level, he voted for such a measure on the state level and was so patronizing as to joke (at least I was assuming he was joking) that they should have recognition signs put on the gas pumps that would note the legislature's role in the suspension of the tax holiday. When Obama tried to act so econom
It is painful reading opinions like this, mainly because of how much they are distortions of reality. It's just like hearing Republicans who say that Bill Clinton was a disaster as President. Opinions like these seem to be the result of so many being force-fed by their preferred political party and that party's respective pundits and as well as its special interest groups. That said, let's move to the line-by-line.
That would probably be on the grounds of looking at how the size of government changes under Republicans.
Source? If many Republicans had their way with entitlement programs, I am fairly sure that the Federal budget would get at least cut in half. Social Security and Medicare are 42% of the budget alone. I am not aruging for or against those programs. I'm just saying that if the Republicans want to cut 50% of the current total budget and even double a portion that comprises 25% of the current budget, that still results in a net loss of 25% of the overall budget.
Now why hasn't this happened? I am not going to speculate as to why except for the following possible way. In general, it is safe to say that Republicans love defense and hate entitlement programs. I think that it it is also safe to say that Democrats love entitlement programs and hate rampant defense spending. Now where does that middle ground leave? If the most good that Congress could agree on was defense, then it needed to be done anyway. Is that a rationalization? Maybe, but I think it's reasonable to assume that Republicans do want smaller government, but the current political process will not allow for it.
And as for "defense", that's what they call it but there is nothing defensive about most of the budget.
Source? Sounds like a conspiracy theory more than anything. Since when are tanks, planes, Humvees, missiles, bullets, guns, and everything else that they buy not defensive? Also, I think that the little piece of research that we now call the Internet was derived from the United States military. I think it's safe to say that has been beneficial to civilization. If we were so shortsighted as to the benefits of research being done, we would not have much of the technology that we do today. I guess we can consider a janitor at a Naval support center to not be "defensive", but at the same time that also seems like a necessary cost to an organization like the Navy.
The American people largely don't benefit from those expenditures, the defense contractors do.
Really? Have a source for that? Also, who comprises those defense companies and what implications does that composition have? I have some facts, right here, right now. A great number of Americans directly or indirectly benefits from our massive military spending whether you like it or not because of the nature of that spending. Much of it is classified and it simply can not be outsourced to other countries. Companies like AeroVironment, Boeing, Ceradyne, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and United Technologies together directly employ hundreds of thousands of people from engineers to factory workers to janitors. Then you have the subcontractors that are indirectly benefit from a contract being awarded. And then you have all of the research that universities do.
There are also the ancillary effects of all those people spending their money that are not directly related to employment or spending. What about all of the pension plans, IRAs, 401(k) plans, and other investment accounts that all rely on public companies that benefit from this defense spending? What about all of the investments in companies that rely on the spending of the direct and indirect beneficiaries of government contracts? The economy really is an ecosystem and destroying one part of it impacts the whole.
Also, don't forget that the government taxes just about everything. This basically means that every dollar they spend, they can received a sign
But most republican politicians seem to like bigger government! I'm so confused...
On what grounds? If you mean in terms of defense, sure. But what about Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and simplification of the tax code? I am not arguing one way or the other, but if you eliminated Social Security and Medicare alone, you would decrease Federal spending by at least 42%!
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
I don't know about that. The Knight may still be trapped in the fallen rocks!
That's why I put the term in quotes. I hate using terms like that as I think that it just leads to political cheerleading and jeerleading, much like what we get today. Just read this article. It's absurd.
As for your contention about not accepting the media as "liberal", why do you think there is such a large disparity between Fox News and the rest of them? Either most media outlets are actually truly centrist (highly improbable) and Fox News is far "right" or they are on opposite sides of the fence. I specifically referenced newspapers too for a reason. They almost always, at least in the Philadelphia area, seem to endorse the Democratic candidates. It's astounding at just how one-sided they are.
You also argue that companies' board would not allow such a thing to happen, to which I have four responses. The first is the principle of editorial independence. The second is the nature of business. Boards and managements tend to only care about a few things: the top line, the bottom line, guidance, and share price. You keep all of them high and they are happy. Most executives do their jobs or attempt to at least; they leave politics aside. If they get numbers doing one thing, they do it. In a similar example, look at how much media programming changes. NBC doesn't keep an executive's favorite show on and CBS doesn't keep an executive's favorite radio station format. They change all the time. Third, executives aren't as one sided as people assume. You'd be surprised at the amount of business people that are not totally conservative. The fourth is the nature of journalism. From grade school all the way through media corporations, those involved with journalism tend to be overwhelmingly "liberal". It's just the way it works. Artists are similar. As are educators. Those are fair generalizations. The only divergence from this that I have observed is in specialty media outlets, such as "conservative" oriented media or business media.
I think the parent here is being sarcastic.
10 year ago we were told to not bother drilling because it wouldn't make an impact until that long. Well, here we are, 10 years later and energy problems are coming to a head.
Slightly off topic, but I just love how Democrats think that the Republicans are causing this energy crisis. They want to drill. It's simply supply and demand. Flood the market, it will solve the problem. Can the Democrats just be honest and say that high energy prices will actually lead to the development of viable alternatives? Oh wait, they don't need to be because they can have their cake and eat it too. They get to champion the environment while accusing the Republicans of causing the mess and benefiting from higher oil prices. People need to take their tin foil hats off and realize what's actually happening.
Just so I'm clear, I actually like higher energy prices because it will lead to development of viable alternatives so we don't need to import all of this oil. T. Boone Pickens is right too. We need to stop this massive transfer of wealth. This is especially true when you consider who we are transferring this wealth to and how it appears to be spent.
I was baffled by this quote as well. With exception of Fox News, I think it's generally accepted that most of the media has a "liberal" bias. It cracks me up whenever you see "liberal" complaining that the media is too far "right" or they say that it isn't biased at all.
Have they ever taken the time to research the political stance of their anchors? It's not something I really do, but it comes up occasionally and I have trouble naming more than a few anchors who are not "liberal". Have they ever read a the op/ed section of a typical newspaper?
Just because one's views become normalized in the minds of an individual does not mean that they become the baseline or the middle. To think otherwise is just absurd. Unless one is literally 100% moderate and unbiased, which is pretty much impossible.
I honestly just read over the word. I just assumed to meant anti-ethical.
When I say "practical Libertarianism", I mean basically what you said, Get rid of the 5-20% of the extreme views and I'm set. The less government, the better. I don't need to be micromanaged. I don't think other people need to either.
Libertarianism advocates for the right to exploit? While people certainly exploit others and it is unfortunate, one is also able to exploit themselves. That's why I said practical Libertarianism. You can't have anarchy.
As for that being "antiethical", I think it's "antiethical" to continue to use systems that simply don't work and don't allow for the most and best freedom of choice.
Unless you consider adaptation to be waiting 2.5-5 year for something that works about 90%, I won't be eagerly awaiting the reverse engineering!
We expect conservatives to try to erode our rights, and expect the liberals to fight for them.
While I don't want to get into a shouting match over this, I do want to say that this statement is not fair. This is especially true when you consider perspective. A right to one person may not be viewed as a right to another or, worse, they don't value that right and then step all over it with no regard to others.
If you don't think that things like the nationalization of retirement and healthcare, as well as the desire to control wealth, trade, commerce, the rights of the unborn, guns, and various media content do not affect both individual and corporate rights on multiple levels, then you are sorely mistaken. Just because you don't value them doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily worth valuing.
Also, my contention that who is in power affects what is happening. Just as liberals assail conservatives now for racking up debt in the name of national security, liberal candidates are planning huge government spending programs that conservatives say is reckless. Also, I'm sure that Al Gore would have supported something like the PATRIOT Act as George W. Bush had. Whether or not you like it, having the president sit on his hands after one of the most shocking events in a country's history would have been ludicrous politically.
The more and more I see of politics, the more and more I think that both major parties are wrong. I think that a practical Libertarianism is best. If you chose to not feel that way, that is fine, but you better have some robust reason to back up your position. Whatever you do, just don't reject it out of utter cognitive dissonance!
I think that this is a case of New Yorkers thinking that they run the world, so they are going to influence it in any way that they can. Unless ESRB labels are proven to be inadequate, which I think they are not, how can a new label really bring anything to the table?
Parents just need to go back to parenting. The government can not be assumed to have to make up for the shortcomings of parents. Until people stop projecting blame on everyone else, the problems that we face are unlikely to abate.
*Prepares for the maelstrom"
This is not a position, just an observation. I think it's very ironic that there are so many people that accuse "conservatives" of shredding the Constitution when you have things like this happening in New York, which is noted for being very "liberal". McCain voted for the PATRIOT Act and Obama voted for FISA. My point isn't the criticize one or the other. My point is that politicians are politicians. Little is it realized that both sides of the aisle vote and some form of a majority must be reached. The two major parties in America seem to be not as dissimilar as one would expect. This is particularly true when they come into a position of power.
The fact of the matter is that cognitive dissonance totally pervades our society on just about every level. While I can't speak for everyone, I highly doubt this phenomenon is limited to America. Politics has devolved into a bloodmatch of two teams where, even though no one wins, the crowd riots no matter what. Well, that is to assume that it was ever at a higher state to begin with!
Can we please stop cheerleading the politicians that are handpicked for us by each respective party's machine? Perhaps if we held our representation accountable on some level that things will get better. Then again, maybe that is just asking for too much.
*Ducks*