Thank you for that link. Now let's look at the post:
Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and nobody from the Bush administration has made that claim.
That is untrue. For example, in September of 2003, Dick Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
The very first claim in the post is patently untrue.
So I guess he was thinking about the kids in that room. Oh well.
You're a good man for finding that and issuing a retraction. Thank you.
But even taking that into account, the only way that I could see him panicking children would be to do something akin to screaming like a little girl, sobbing unctrollably, or yelling "Oh my God, we're all going to die!"
I hate to have to explain this, but whenever the President is in public there are dozens of cameras trained on him watching his every move.
Again, he could have said something Presidential like "I'm sorry to cut my visit short, but I have important things I have to do in Washington. It's been wonderful visiting with such a smart group of children." I don't think that the children would have panicked, the nation would have panicked, or the press would have been panicked. A bigger cause for panic is seeing him sitting there with a stunned look in his eyes for five minutes while the nation is under attack.
The President's new mode of transportation: a black hole between Florida and DC...
My mistake. I misread the location of the school.
He was available to make the necessary decisions.
No, he wasn't. He was listening to a reading by elementary school children.
The FAA has plans in place of what they will do in case of a hijacking, and they have the experts to carry out those plans. They don't need the President to tell them how to control air traffic.
You're taking off-the-cuff examples that I gave and trying to pick them apart. You know as well as I do that Bush could have, and should have, been gathering information and making command decisions rather than remaining at a reading session with elementary school children.
When the President was informed of the second plane hitting, he sat there knowing that these agencies and plans were in full swing, and there was little he could do at that point. He told the 9/11 Commission that he decided that it would be best for him to project calm and allow these people to do their jobs and collect the information that he would need later. I don't know if that was the best solution, but it certainly wasn't a wrong one.
It was very clearly a wrong decision. That's why so many people are horrified at seeing the video of it. Please. Watch that. Do the children look frightened and in need of a calming influence? Hell no. They have no idea of what even happened. Besides, why did calming 30 school children take precedence over calming a frightened nation?
Bush sat there for five minutes while children read aloud. Then he got up and meandered around for another half a minute or so after that. Why did he decide that 'projecting calm' to a room full of perfectly calm elementary school children was more important than gathering information, making decisions, and making the tough calls when presented with conflicting reports from senior staff, the media, and government agencies? Stop being an apologist for someone who is so clearly in over his head.
You think it is scary that somebody disagrees with you?
I think it's scary when someone can't see the value in something as clear, coherent, and well-written as the post I commended.
I guess humility isn't one of your strengths.
The average NAMBLA member probably disagrees with you about the appropriateness of sex with young boys. Could you see their disagreement with you as 'scary'? If so, would that indicate that you lack humility?
...The fact is, when the nightmare scenario came true, he froze.
I personally love this argument, what was the right course of action then?
To immediately, but in a calm voice, excuse himself and tell the children that he had to go back to the White House for "something really important." He should have then exited the school and then been briefed as he returned to the White House. In the 20 minutes it took to get back to the White House, he should have been making decisions (scramble fighters? divert aircraft en-route to DC and New York? dismiss government employees from potential non-military targets like the Treasury?) and issuing appropriate orders.
Regardless of whether he was elected or selected, the President of the United States is supposed to show leadership and an ability to respond quickly and decisively. He's the Commander In Chief of the military and he owes it to this country to do more than sit and read to children when the country is under attack.
That was, quite simply, the most impressive, reasoned, and intelligent post that I've seen on Slashdot in quite a long time. In fact, most newspapers would be hard-pressed to find writers who could craft political commentary that well. Bravo!
The only thing good about the Clinton years was that 6 of the 8 were tied up in enough gridlock to prevent the government from doing much harm.
Do you remember the economy? It was under Clinton that it flourished. We reduced the deficit to the point of having a surplus. We had a President and Vice President who were pro-tech (rather than pro-oil-company).
As it is, I'm sticking with the president who shattered the Al Quaida network, overthrew both the Taliban and the Ba'ath regimes, got Libya to turn end and fully disclose their WMD programs, and continues to doggedly pressure Iran and North Korea.
Then you are sticking with a President who encourages terrorism by fomenting hate all over the world. How many terrorist acts have occurred in Iraq? How many people have been taken captive and cruelly beheaded? How many soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs? If he "shattered the Al Quaida network", where's Bin Laden? Why does Washington DC look like a war zone with concrete barricades and soldiers carrying automatic weapons?
And you're sticking with a President who has used 9/11 as an excuse to gut the Constitution. We have people held prisoner for months, and even years, that have not been charged with anything, are not being given access to attorneys, and who have not seen their families. We have the PATRIOT Act, a despicable piece of legislation that does away with your rights to due process while giving law enforcement sweeping powers with no judicial oversight.
I don't give two shits what he did as a young Naval Reserve officer in Vietnam, and it seems that most people feel the same way.
Then care about the fact that Kerry knows the horror of war personally. What does G.W. Bush, a man who had daddy pull strings to prevent him from serving in Vietnam, know about war? Bush callously sends young men and women to die in Iraq yet has never even attended a funeral for one of the fallen soldiers. He won't even let the news media show the caskets because he wants to keep the American public from seeing the real cost of his war.
I'm about to just stop coming to slashdot since I'm having this CRAMMED DOWN MY THROAT.
Maybe they recognize that having informed voters is more important than telling people about the new iPod Mini colors or beta versions of release candidates of FreeBSD. Why would any person not want to be informed about the presidential election in the U.S.? The person holding that office will have more effect on the tech sector than Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Linus Torvalds combined. The President of the U.S. is the one who will either sign or veto bills on everything from Digital Rights Management to reinstating the draft. Check the box for politics. Read the articles. Read the comments. Participate in the discussions. Try to make a difference.
Price-setters (who can be either consumers or businesses) set prices.
Then I'm going to become a consumer price-setter and tell Best Buy that I've repriced the 300GB hard drive to $5. Oh, you mean that Best Buy can set the price but I can't? And I'm a "price-setter" how?
So why aren't more workers training themselves to be corporate officers?
Because people normally attain these positions by climbing corporate ladders, not by taking classes at night school.
Greater supply drives down prices, you know.
That might explain why corporate officers at most companies don't groom 40% of their workforce for roles as corporate officers.
That requires a free market... but people who complain about high executive salaries don't want a free market.
Correct. I do not want a free market. I want one which is somewhat regulated.
I would dump her the moment I would find someone smarter, more understanding and better suited for me - provided the 'convenience' of my current relationship is not really what I need any more.
Then we differ. It's just different values -- no insult intended. But to me, it's that "in sickness and in health" thing you hear at so many weddings.
It's called the paycheck. The company's loyalty might not end there necessarily, but it's up to people to not to let themselves get exploited.
A paycheck is contractually required. Loyalty is the company granting you an additional week of leave because of a death in the family. It's the company keeping your job for you when a serious medical problem keeps you out for three months. It's the company saying "Bob's been there for us for thirty years, cutting into his personal schedule to meet our needs. We owe it to him to not replace him in his last three years of work just to save a few bucks."
1. Yes, the worker's salary was spent in the economy - but it's not about the individual's consumption here. The salary was paid out by the wrong party - a party that was forced to spend money because they were forced to employ the person only because he was there for a number of years; money that could have been put into more efficient use (and the opportunity for businesses to spend money more efficiently helps the economy as a whole, don't you think?).
Often, no. The millions of dollars sent overseas is money that won't be taxed as income, hurting other taxpayers. The workers who were outsourced will get unemployment, further harming all of us who pay taxes. Some will declare bankruptcy, harming businesses, which will pass the costs of the uncollectable loans on to consumers and other businesses. Many will have less to spend for years to come, harming businesses and the workers those businesses employ. It's a ripple effect that should not be underestimated.
2. Don't bring up the U.S. vs. foreign argument, it's nonsense. Go look up Walmart numbers (has like a $250B GDP - bigger than Sweden or Austria), then walk down to your local Walmart (regardless of where in the world you are, there will be one within a range of max. 300 km), look at the back of the products for the "Made in" labels and please realize that even if you live in the U.S., you do NOT live in a U.S. economy any more.
But when I, or any U.S. worker, spends money at Walmart, it's helping to pay the wages of cashiers, stock clerks, store managers, security personnel, janitors, and anyone else who works there. It also helps to pay the wages of the truck drivers who deliver the goods, the construction workers who built the store, and the accountants, lawyers, and buyers working at headquarters. You're mistaking manufacturing for the whole economy. It's not.
Overall, you seem to have something against 'foreign' economies, 'foreign' workers, 'foreign' jobs, 'foreign' goods. Where is that xenophobia coming from? Are you fearing you'll be outsmarted, outraced, outdone, made obsolete by the 'foreign', that the 'foreign' is plotting against you? Do you follow what I'm trying to say?
I'm not afraid of foreign workers or in danger of losing my livelihood to them (for reasons that I can't discuss -- but I'm safe). What I am afraid of is the harm that will come to the economy when the middle class finds themselves with less and less income and increasingly fewer opportunities. The gap between the CEOs' salaries and those of the workers is growing by leaps and bounds, while more and more U.S. dollars are going overseas. It's a recipe for economic meltdown.
Apparently it is wearing on you considering the number of the personal attacks that have crept in, so I'll bid you farewell and leave you with the last word.
No, capitalism is a system whereby a very large number of middle class and poor customers have an economic incentive to drive down the profits of the vast majority of businesses.
Businesses set prices, not consumers. There may be some consumers who are buying with a price-is-everything mentality, but that companies like BMW, Linn, and SK thrive is proof that there is a market for high-quality products sold at appropriate prices.
From that definition comes the need for businesses to pay as little as they can.
So why have salaries of corporate officers skyrocketed while those of workers have declined? They are just redistributing the pie. My bank now uses overseas workers to process paperwork. They haven't passed any savings on to me.
Why isn't it realized by people that the job market is nothing more than a big match-making service where people or businesses go and try to find out who fits whose needs at the moment?
Yes, it is a big match-making service. If you met your wife/girlfriend through a match-making service, would you dump her the moment you found someone younger, prettier, or with less expensive tastes on a Russian brides website?
The business owner has the right to make a decision about his business. The 60-year-old was involved in a relationship with that business for a number of years. It worked: he delivered value, he got compensated back for it. Why is it wrong to terminate such a relationship if it doesn't make sense for the employer any more? It would be wrong to keep it artificially, wouldn't it?
Businesses like "loyal" employees. They will play the loyalty card every time that they want an employee to come in over the weekend, stay late into the evening, or reschedule a vacation so that they can meet the company's needs. Where is the loyalty on the part of the business? Why isn't someone in the corporate office saying: "The people on that workfloor made this company a success. They have sacrificed weekends, worked late into the evenings, and accepted pay cuts when we got in trouble. They stuck with us even when they could have found others to pay them more. We owe it to them to not dump them the moment that we find someone cheaper overseas."?
If I am a business owner and I am forced to loose an opportunity to contribute extra into the domestic product by employing (and paying) someone with whom my business is not extracting the value it is interested in, isn't that bad for the economy?
That worker's salary was contributing to the economy. He was spending it on goods and services in the U.S., unlike his foreign counterpart.
Re:All I know is...
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sounds like you're lacking in motivation.
Unlike you, I'm working as a software engineer, so it sounds like I was motivated enough to get the skills I needed to be desirable in a tight job market.
Personally it's not as difficult as you make it sound to switch professions, in fact I know quite a few people who have done so as of late, and are better for it.
It's one thing to go from being a recent grad in an entry-level programming position to some other entry-level position, but it's quite another for a family breadwinner who's got 15 or 20 years of experience and seniority in his field to switch professions.
I am a programmer first and foremost, unable to find a programming job in this shithole I live in
I went to the web page shown on your Slashdot link (http://www.aboring.com) and got the following:
Notice: Undefined variable: prefix in/var/www/virtual/aboring/html/header.php on line 21
Notice: Use of undefined constant REMOTE_ADDR - assumed 'REMOTE_ADDR' in/var/www/virtual/aboring/html/header.php on line 27
Warning: mysql_connect(): Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/run/mysql/mysql.sock' (2) in/var/www/virtual/aboring/html/fusion_core/fusion_c ore.php on line 65 Unable to connect to SQL Server
Maybe your inability to find programming work is not due to where you live...
I work as a heavy equipment mechanic.
I'm sorry that you've had to take such work, but I wouldn't call it a profession. It's a job.
and I will be voting GOP
I can see why given the way that your career is prospering under the GOP.
Then killing you would not be murder if I defined it that way. Gee, it's easy to be immoral, isn't it?
You missed the point: Proclaiming that abortion is or is not murder does not make it so. It's pointless to assert that "abortion is murder" or "abortion is not murder" without providing rationale for the statement.
No, wealth is usually inherited.
I think you'd better re-check your statistics, Sparky.
I did. The vast majority of wealthy Americans were born into money. If George Bush's parents hadn't been wealthy, he would not now have a multi-million dollar net worth. In fact, there's a much better chance that he would have died in Vietnam or ended up working at a Dairy Queen.
Re:You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh again...
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
4% is actually can be quite a large 'block' of voting power in that company.
It's 4% of the vote. Not that useful.
Besides, what is she supposed to do in this case? Demand that Heinz close down its plants overseas, bottle the ketchup in the U.S., and then ship it all over the world, practically guaranteeing that it will be prohibitively expensive and not fresh? Can you imagine the 65% of the mutual fund and institutional investors going along with such a nutty scheme?
Bottom line:
1. John Kerry doesn't control Heinz 2. Theresa Kerry doesn't control Heinz 3. Heinz is behaving ethically and responsibly by producing food products using fresh ingredients in the countries where they are sold 4. It would harm consumers, shareholders, and Heinz employees were Heinz to move all of its production to the U.S. It would probably go bankrupt. 5. No one has shown where the Kerrys have done anything wrong in relation to this
Catholic schools, for instance, run voluntary programs to help those who cannot afford to go to the school. The ones that actually do their homework and pass classes get practically a full ride, but no less they a considerable portion to help them pay for it.
I don't like the idea of children who live in Salt Lake City, Utah having to either go to the local Mormon-run private school that teaches the Mormon faith or go to none at all. If a child's family is Muslim and the only private schools around are Catholic and Jewish, what then? Should the child be indoctrinated into one of those faiths against the wishes of his parents?
Private schools from K-University are less expensive and provide a better education. Statistical facts done by government, independent, and private studies. Look them up.
You've got a self-selecting sample in private schools. The kids who are only staying in school because the law requires it, and whose parents don't give a rat's ass about education, are in public schools.
Are those workers being forced into those conditions [which aren't exactly universal, no matter how hard you try to demonize business owners]? Nope. They're not.
So anything goes? No OSHA standards. No standards about sexual harassment? No Department of Labor standards? Are they forced at gunpoint? No. Are they forced by economic circumstances? Maybe.
Please. The Nanny State existed in minimal form for most of our history, and has only been growing over the past century, and especially so with FDR, Wilson, and the other "New Deal" jerkoffs.
But the economy has been growing at the same time, so it seems that social welfare isn't causing the downfall of society that you predicted.
Again, when does a fetus become a human being?
There is no litmus test for humanity and there never will be. And there is every definition from conception, to viability, to birth.
I could care less about a whole lot of people...
I could NOT care less about a whole lot of people.
Accepted. I made the jump there from fetus to infant. When does a fetus become a child? If you cannot define that, you cannot say abortions are ok.
Of course I can. You're making the assumption that there is a scientifically valid means of determining when a fetus becomes a child and I am confident that there is not. Therefore, in my opinion, it's only right to respect the views of the pregnant woman.
I'm not against helping other people, no matter how much you or anybody else tries to demonize me as such. I'm against programs that are not voluntary on moral grounds.
I oppose, on moral grounds, letting someone reap all of the rewards of our society and then choose to give nothing back. Social programs are like insurance. Most of us hope that we never have to "make a claim." But voluntary welfare contributions would be as likely to succeed as making a system of car insurance where everyone was insured but only those who chose to contributed to the insurance fund.
Let us go over some truths about Trade. 1. The number of jobs grows with population.
But those jobs are being filled with overseas workers in many instances.
2. Jobs churn constantly.
Yes, but the rate, volatility, and downwards pressure on wages that is an issue.
3. Challenging, high paying jobs, are becoming more plentiful, not less.
I know. Just call tech support for your computer and the person in Bangalore, India will tell you that challenging, high-paying (for India) jobs are definitely more plentiful in recent years. You might get a different answer if you asked the American that they replaced.
4. While I say we are moving towards an information and services economy, the idea that we are deindustrializing is a myth. We're becoming more productive. It is easier for anyone in this country to create more wealth than ever. Do n
I think prayer should be in schools that are private religious institutions, but in public schools? Of course not. However, I am against public schools for various reasons. Inefficiency and ever increasing costs, being primary factors.
The battle cry of the right: prayer belongs in private schools and all schools should be private. Oh, and to hell with any kid who was born into poverty. No school for them.
It is not the proper role of government to say what can and cannot go on in schools,
So I guess that you'll be voting against "No Child Left Behind" Bush, right?
business
What right does that evil government have to say you can't expose your illegal immigrant workers to carcinogens during their 12 hour, no-restroom-break shifts?
, or in my household.
Damn those anti-incest laws!
The role of government is to defend property rights, and to defend the rights of the individual.
In your world, perhaps. But in the U.S., we have over two centuries of legislative and judicial activity that defines government as being there to help people, not just defend their property. As to defending individual rights, does Bush's support of the Patriot Act count as another reason he should be ousted?
Could you claim a woman has the right to kill what would become a child [with the logic that with proper care a fetus would become a child, just like with proper care a child would become an adult] even if she did not want the child?
Yes. I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with my sperm ending up in the end of a condom -- even though one of them could have resulted in a child.
If you can claim that the woman has no responsibility for the child that she did not want,
Logical leap: First it was a fetus that could become a child and now it's a "child." I don't play those games.
could you then honestly say that it is my responsibility to take care of my fellow man, most of which I could care less about... and perhaps should [care less about]?
I doubt that you "could care less" about your fellow man than you do now. Sorry, bud, but you are part of a society and a society takes care of its weak.
In simpler words, if a woman does not have to take care of something forced upon her in the case of an infant, why should I?
I don't recall stating that women should be allowed to abandon babies.
These tax breaks are not just for the wealthy, or for the corporate elite, they're for everybody. Unfortunately, they're not tax breaks as they are a form of welfare. Call it corporate welfare if you'd like, but don't fail to point out that it is fabricated as an illusion to assist all of us.
It was simply a means of buying votes from people too stupid to recognize that they were just taking money from their children, grandchildren, etc. And to get votes from rich greedy people.
Actually, the redistribution of wealth does not work. It is the artificial reduction of poverty. It begins to fail when the funds reducing poverty are cut off.
Such as what happens when you cut welfare programs to pay for tax cuts.
Since you claim to be a moral superior, then tell me, what is redistribution of wealth but stealing through taxes?
It's paying the cost of a society. It's recognizing that the weak sometimes need help and that the strong can provide it.
There are two ways that can allegedly reduce poverty. "Durable opportunities" as they are called by some, are opportunities that last a considerable amount of time (jobs and careers).
But aren't you arguing in favor of letting companies outsource jobs and careers out of the U.S. with no penalties, laws, or regulations to impede the job exodus? Aren't you saying "anything for a buck" when it comes to major corporations?
The second way to permanently reduce poverty is to increase pro
Now, Mr. Buffet may be a philanthropist, and he may have *so much money* that he no longer knows where to put it, but that is his opinion.
No, those are his morals. Something you apparently lack.
I imagine that if we asked Mr. Gates for his opinion, we may find an interesting contrast
I'm not interested in finding someone greedy and self-serving. I'm more interested in hearing from someone who speaks about values and ethics -- even when it it hits them in the wallet.
How about we let people keep their own damn money, and let them decide whether to donate it to charity?
No thanks. I'm not interested in a society where greed is rewarded monetarily. You shouldn't get to drive a nicer car than you neighbor simply because you chose to donate nothing to charity. All that the income tax system does is set the minimum participation level for you as a member of society. It keeps you from opting out of your societal obligations. Don't like it? Then move.
Mr. Gates has a right to his money (property rights).
If you're that delusional, I suggest that you take the matter to court where they can explain the rights of our democratically elected government to impose taxes.
Yes, but you are removing capital from the market.
No, you are not. You're just redirecting it. No one is setting it all ablaze on April 16. If it Bill Gates' taxes go to people in the form of welfare checks, you can rest assured that the money will be spent, adding capital back into the market. And more importantly, it wouldn't all go to Bill Gates. It would help pay the salaries of people at the grocery stores, the clothing stores, in doctors' offices, in department stores, in Walmarts, etc.
Yes, it does. Working for your own effort is fun, carrying someone elses lazy ass is not (slavery).
Not everyone who need government assistance is a "lazy ass" you insensitive, ignorant prick. There are plenty of people who took welfare only as a last resort to feed their families while they did everything that they could to find work. If you get to keep 65% of the money you bring in, you're still getting rewarded for your efforts. Do you honestly think that wages would be as high if they eliminated income tax tomorrow? Hell no. The day that they eliminate income tax is the day that employers start cutting wages.
Teach a man to fish (get a job), you feed him for a lifetime.
Part of the welfare system is job training, but I suppose that you're against that, too.
Some one tag on if I'm wrong, the comments around here like "get a job you lazy bastard" and "economic girly men" and "stop whining" don't sound very compassionate to me, nor do they seem very Christian.
As an atheist, what can I say but "Amen!"?;-)
Maybe the 'just train for a new job' argument would be valid if The State provided free education to all interested. Sorry for going kinda off topic.
It's not off-topic at all and you hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of conservatives that I've met want to blame the poor, not lend them a helping hand.
Re:All I know is...
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First off, you won. There are 0 examples of this.
Thank you. Words to that effect have probably seldom been read here.
And that fact leaves us with the obvious - that since there are none, then.... where is this going?
I don't know. You tell me. My whole point was was to counter the claim that "You and i know it only takes like 2 days to set up a profitable business that can employ others."
That capitalism doesn't work? That some guy who said that there is one is wrong, and capitalist and therefore capitalism is wrong?
Not at all. Capitalism works fine when there are reasonable laws and government regulations to protect the workers from having their standards of living eroded by greed at the top. Something is wrong when people with decades of experience are being laid off at age 60+ just so that the companies that they helped make profitable can become slightly more so.
Man, go brush up on how to think in the first place then maybe you can get your own life working in some successful direction.. and I'm not talking about monetarily, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for that link. Now let's look at the post:
Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and nobody from the Bush administration has made that claim.
That is untrue. For example, in September of 2003, Dick Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
The very first claim in the post is patently untrue.
So I guess he was thinking about the kids in that room. Oh well.
You're a good man for finding that and issuing a retraction. Thank you.
But even taking that into account, the only way that I could see him panicking children would be to do something akin to screaming like a little girl, sobbing unctrollably, or yelling "Oh my God, we're all going to die!"
I hate to have to explain this, but whenever the President is in public there are dozens of cameras trained on him watching his every move.
Again, he could have said something Presidential like "I'm sorry to cut my visit short, but I have important things I have to do in Washington. It's been wonderful visiting with such a smart group of children." I don't think that the children would have panicked, the nation would have panicked, or the press would have been panicked. A bigger cause for panic is seeing him sitting there with a stunned look in his eyes for five minutes while the nation is under attack.
The President's new mode of transportation: a black hole between Florida and DC...
My mistake. I misread the location of the school.
He was available to make the necessary decisions.
No, he wasn't. He was listening to a reading by elementary school children.
The FAA has plans in place of what they will do in case of a hijacking, and they have the experts to carry out those plans. They don't need the President to tell them how to control air traffic.
You're taking off-the-cuff examples that I gave and trying to pick them apart. You know as well as I do that Bush could have, and should have, been gathering information and making command decisions rather than remaining at a reading session with elementary school children.
When the President was informed of the second plane hitting, he sat there knowing that these agencies and plans were in full swing, and there was little he could do at that point. He told the 9/11 Commission that he decided that it would be best for him to project calm and allow these people to do their jobs and collect the information that he would need later. I don't know if that was the best solution, but it certainly wasn't a wrong one.
It was very clearly a wrong decision. That's why so many people are horrified at seeing the video of it. Please. Watch that. Do the children look frightened and in need of a calming influence? Hell no. They have no idea of what even happened. Besides, why did calming 30 school children take precedence over calming a frightened nation?
Bush sat there for five minutes while children read aloud. Then he got up and meandered around for another half a minute or so after that. Why did he decide that 'projecting calm' to a room full of perfectly calm elementary school children was more important than gathering information, making decisions, and making the tough calls when presented with conflicting reports from senior staff, the media, and government agencies? Stop being an apologist for someone who is so clearly in over his head.
You think it is scary that somebody disagrees with you?
I think it's scary when someone can't see the value in something as clear, coherent, and well-written as the post I commended.
I guess humility isn't one of your strengths.
The average NAMBLA member probably disagrees with you about the appropriateness of sex with young boys. Could you see their disagreement with you as 'scary'? If so, would that indicate that you lack humility?
Thats funny. I was thinking the exact opposite.
That's not funny. That's scary.
...The fact is, when the nightmare scenario came true, he froze.
I personally love this argument, what was the right course of action then?
To immediately, but in a calm voice, excuse himself and tell the children that he had to go back to the White House for "something really important." He should have then exited the school and then been briefed as he returned to the White House. In the 20 minutes it took to get back to the White House, he should have been making decisions (scramble fighters? divert aircraft en-route to DC and New York? dismiss government employees from potential non-military targets like the Treasury?) and issuing appropriate orders.
Regardless of whether he was elected or selected, the President of the United States is supposed to show leadership and an ability to respond quickly and decisively. He's the Commander In Chief of the military and he owes it to this country to do more than sit and read to children when the country is under attack.
Perhaps because he doesn't feel that /. is the ideal place to keep informed on politics?
That's why the links point elsewhere. Besides, if he's informed, he should be advocating candidates in public forums like this one.
That was, quite simply, the most impressive, reasoned, and intelligent post that I've seen on Slashdot in quite a long time. In fact, most newspapers would be hard-pressed to find writers who could craft political commentary that well. Bravo!
Neither speaking clearly nor saying a lot will make up for having nothing of value to say.
As you have so aptly proven.
The only thing good about the Clinton years was that 6 of the 8 were tied up in enough gridlock to prevent the government from doing much harm.
Do you remember the economy? It was under Clinton that it flourished. We reduced the deficit to the point of having a surplus. We had a President and Vice President who were pro-tech (rather than pro-oil-company).
As it is, I'm sticking with the president who shattered the Al Quaida network, overthrew both the Taliban and the Ba'ath regimes, got Libya to turn end and fully disclose their WMD programs, and continues to doggedly pressure Iran and North Korea.
Then you are sticking with a President who encourages terrorism by fomenting hate all over the world. How many terrorist acts have occurred in Iraq? How many people have been taken captive and cruelly beheaded? How many soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs? If he "shattered the Al Quaida network", where's Bin Laden? Why does Washington DC look like a war zone with concrete barricades and soldiers carrying automatic weapons?
And you're sticking with a President who has used 9/11 as an excuse to gut the Constitution. We have people held prisoner for months, and even years, that have not been charged with anything, are not being given access to attorneys, and who have not seen their families. We have the PATRIOT Act, a despicable piece of legislation that does away with your rights to due process while giving law enforcement sweeping powers with no judicial oversight.
I don't give two shits what he did as a young Naval Reserve officer in Vietnam, and it seems that most people feel the same way.
Then care about the fact that Kerry knows the horror of war personally. What does G.W. Bush, a man who had daddy pull strings to prevent him from serving in Vietnam, know about war? Bush callously sends young men and women to die in Iraq yet has never even attended a funeral for one of the fallen soldiers. He won't even let the news media show the caskets because he wants to keep the American public from seeing the real cost of his war.
I'm about to just stop coming to slashdot since I'm having this CRAMMED DOWN MY THROAT.
Maybe they recognize that having informed voters is more important than telling people about the new iPod Mini colors or beta versions of release candidates of FreeBSD. Why would any person not want to be informed about the presidential election in the U.S.? The person holding that office will have more effect on the tech sector than Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Linus Torvalds combined. The President of the U.S. is the one who will either sign or veto bills on everything from Digital Rights Management to reinstating the draft. Check the box for politics. Read the articles. Read the comments. Participate in the discussions. Try to make a difference.
Price-setters (who can be either consumers or businesses) set prices.
... but people who complain about high executive salaries don't want a free market.
Then I'm going to become a consumer price-setter and tell Best Buy that I've repriced the 300GB hard drive to $5. Oh, you mean that Best Buy can set the price but I can't? And I'm a "price-setter" how?
So why aren't more workers training themselves to be corporate officers?
Because people normally attain these positions by climbing corporate ladders, not by taking classes at night school.
Greater supply drives down prices, you know.
That might explain why corporate officers at most companies don't groom 40% of their workforce for roles as corporate officers.
That requires a free market
Correct. I do not want a free market. I want one which is somewhat regulated.
I would dump her the moment I would find someone smarter, more understanding and better suited for me - provided the 'convenience' of my current relationship is not really what I need any more.
Then we differ. It's just different values -- no insult intended. But to me, it's that "in sickness and in health" thing you hear at so many weddings.
It's called the paycheck. The company's loyalty might not end there necessarily, but it's up to people to not to let themselves get exploited.
A paycheck is contractually required. Loyalty is the company granting you an additional week of leave because of a death in the family. It's the company keeping your job for you when a serious medical problem keeps you out for three months. It's the company saying "Bob's been there for us for thirty years, cutting into his personal schedule to meet our needs. We owe it to him to not replace him in his last three years of work just to save a few bucks."
1. Yes, the worker's salary was spent in the economy - but it's not about the individual's consumption here. The salary was paid out by the wrong party - a party that was forced to spend money because they were forced to employ the person only because he was there for a number of years; money that could have been put into more efficient use (and the opportunity for businesses to spend money more efficiently helps the economy as a whole, don't you think?).
Often, no. The millions of dollars sent overseas is money that won't be taxed as income, hurting other taxpayers. The workers who were outsourced will get unemployment, further harming all of us who pay taxes. Some will declare bankruptcy, harming businesses, which will pass the costs of the uncollectable loans on to consumers and other businesses. Many will have less to spend for years to come, harming businesses and the workers those businesses employ. It's a ripple effect that should not be underestimated.
2. Don't bring up the U.S. vs. foreign argument, it's nonsense. Go look up Walmart numbers (has like a $250B GDP - bigger than Sweden or Austria), then walk down to your local Walmart (regardless of where in the world you are, there will be one within a range of max. 300 km), look at the back of the products for the "Made in" labels and please realize that even if you live in the U.S., you do NOT live in a U.S. economy any more.
But when I, or any U.S. worker, spends money at Walmart, it's helping to pay the wages of cashiers, stock clerks, store managers, security personnel, janitors, and anyone else who works there. It also helps to pay the wages of the truck drivers who deliver the goods, the construction workers who built the store, and the accountants, lawyers, and buyers working at headquarters. You're mistaking manufacturing for the whole economy. It's not.
Overall, you seem to have something against 'foreign' economies, 'foreign' workers, 'foreign' jobs, 'foreign' goods. Where is that xenophobia coming from? Are you fearing you'll be outsmarted, outraced, outdone, made obsolete by the 'foreign', that the 'foreign' is plotting against you? Do you follow what I'm trying to say?
I'm not afraid of foreign workers or in danger of losing my livelihood to them (for reasons that I can't discuss -- but I'm safe). What I am afraid of is the harm that will come to the economy when the middle class finds themselves with less and less income and increasingly fewer opportunities. The gap between the CEOs' salaries and those of the workers is growing by leaps and bounds, while more and more U.S. dollars are going overseas. It's a recipe for economic meltdown.
Thank you for this discussion.
Apparently it is wearing on you considering the number of the personal attacks that have crept in, so I'll bid you farewell and leave you with the last word.
No, capitalism is a system whereby a very large number of middle class and poor customers have an economic incentive to drive down the profits of the vast majority of businesses.
Businesses set prices, not consumers. There may be some consumers who are buying with a price-is-everything mentality, but that companies like BMW, Linn, and SK thrive is proof that there is a market for high-quality products sold at appropriate prices.
From that definition comes the need for businesses to pay as little as they can.
So why have salaries of corporate officers skyrocketed while those of workers have declined? They are just redistributing the pie. My bank now uses overseas workers to process paperwork. They haven't passed any savings on to me.
Why isn't it realized by people that the job market is nothing more than a big match-making service where people or businesses go and try to find out who fits whose needs at the moment?
Yes, it is a big match-making service. If you met your wife/girlfriend through a match-making service, would you dump her the moment you found someone younger, prettier, or with less expensive tastes on a Russian brides website?
The business owner has the right to make a decision about his business. The 60-year-old was involved in a relationship with that business for a number of years. It worked: he delivered value, he got compensated back for it. Why is it wrong to terminate such a relationship if it doesn't make sense for the employer any more? It would be wrong to keep it artificially, wouldn't it?
Businesses like "loyal" employees. They will play the loyalty card every time that they want an employee to come in over the weekend, stay late into the evening, or reschedule a vacation so that they can meet the company's needs. Where is the loyalty on the part of the business? Why isn't someone in the corporate office saying: "The people on that workfloor made this company a success. They have sacrificed weekends, worked late into the evenings, and accepted pay cuts when we got in trouble. They stuck with us even when they could have found others to pay them more. We owe it to them to not dump them the moment that we find someone cheaper overseas."?
If I am a business owner and I am forced to loose an opportunity to contribute extra into the domestic product by employing (and paying) someone with whom my business is not extracting the value it is interested in, isn't that bad for the economy?
That worker's salary was contributing to the economy. He was spending it on goods and services in the U.S., unlike his foreign counterpart.
Unlike you, I'm working as a software engineer, so it sounds like I was motivated enough to get the skills I needed to be desirable in a tight job market.
Personally it's not as difficult as you make it sound to switch professions, in fact I know quite a few people who have done so as of late, and are better for it.
It's one thing to go from being a recent grad in an entry-level programming position to some other entry-level position, but it's quite another for a family breadwinner who's got 15 or 20 years of experience and seniority in his field to switch professions.
I am a programmer first and foremost, unable to find a programming job in this shithole I live in
I went to the web page shown on your Slashdot link (http://www.aboring.com) and got the following:Maybe your inability to find programming work is not due to where you live...
I work as a heavy equipment mechanic.
I'm sorry that you've had to take such work, but I wouldn't call it a profession. It's a job.
and I will be voting GOP
I can see why given the way that your career is prospering under the GOP.
Then killing you would not be murder if I defined it that way. Gee, it's easy to be immoral, isn't it?
You missed the point: Proclaiming that abortion is or is not murder does not make it so. It's pointless to assert that "abortion is murder" or "abortion is not murder" without providing rationale for the statement.
No, wealth is usually inherited.
I think you'd better re-check your statistics, Sparky.
I did. The vast majority of wealthy Americans were born into money. If George Bush's parents hadn't been wealthy, he would not now have a multi-million dollar net worth. In fact, there's a much better chance that he would have died in Vietnam or ended up working at a Dairy Queen.
4% is actually can be quite a large 'block' of voting power in that company.
It's 4% of the vote. Not that useful.
Besides, what is she supposed to do in this case? Demand that Heinz close down its plants overseas, bottle the ketchup in the U.S., and then ship it all over the world, practically guaranteeing that it will be prohibitively expensive and not fresh? Can you imagine the 65% of the mutual fund and institutional investors going along with such a nutty scheme?
Bottom line:
1. John Kerry doesn't control Heinz
2. Theresa Kerry doesn't control Heinz
3. Heinz is behaving ethically and responsibly by producing food products using fresh ingredients in the countries where they are sold
4. It would harm consumers, shareholders, and Heinz employees were Heinz to move all of its production to the U.S. It would probably go bankrupt.
5. No one has shown where the Kerrys have done anything wrong in relation to this
Catholic schools, for instance, run voluntary programs to help those who cannot afford to go to the school. The ones that actually do their homework and pass classes get practically a full ride, but no less they a considerable portion to help them pay for it.
I don't like the idea of children who live in Salt Lake City, Utah having to either go to the local Mormon-run private school that teaches the Mormon faith or go to none at all. If a child's family is Muslim and the only private schools around are Catholic and Jewish, what then? Should the child be indoctrinated into one of those faiths against the wishes of his parents?
Private schools from K-University are less expensive and provide a better education. Statistical facts done by government, independent, and private studies. Look them up.
You've got a self-selecting sample in private schools. The kids who are only staying in school because the law requires it, and whose parents don't give a rat's ass about education, are in public schools.
Are those workers being forced into those conditions [which aren't exactly universal, no matter how hard you try to demonize business owners]? Nope. They're not.
So anything goes? No OSHA standards. No standards about sexual harassment? No Department of Labor standards? Are they forced at gunpoint? No. Are they forced by economic circumstances? Maybe.
Please. The Nanny State existed in minimal form for most of our history, and has only been growing over the past century, and especially so with FDR, Wilson, and the other "New Deal" jerkoffs.
But the economy has been growing at the same time, so it seems that social welfare isn't causing the downfall of society that you predicted.
Again, when does a fetus become a human being?
There is no litmus test for humanity and there never will be. And there is every definition from conception, to viability, to birth.
I could care less about a whole lot of people...
I could NOT care less about a whole lot of people.
Accepted. I made the jump there from fetus to infant. When does a fetus become a child? If you cannot define that, you cannot say abortions are ok.
Of course I can. You're making the assumption that there is a scientifically valid means of determining when a fetus becomes a child and I am confident that there is not. Therefore, in my opinion, it's only right to respect the views of the pregnant woman.
I'm not against helping other people, no matter how much you or anybody else tries to demonize me as such. I'm against programs that are not voluntary on moral grounds.
I oppose, on moral grounds, letting someone reap all of the rewards of our society and then choose to give nothing back. Social programs are like insurance. Most of us hope that we never have to "make a claim." But voluntary welfare contributions would be as likely to succeed as making a system of car insurance where everyone was insured but only those who chose to contributed to the insurance fund.
Let us go over some truths about Trade.
1. The number of jobs grows with population.
But those jobs are being filled with overseas workers in many instances.
2. Jobs churn constantly.
Yes, but the rate, volatility, and downwards pressure on wages that is an issue.
3. Challenging, high paying jobs, are becoming more plentiful, not less.
I know. Just call tech support for your computer and the person in Bangalore, India will tell you that challenging, high-paying (for India) jobs are definitely more plentiful in recent years. You might get a different answer if you asked the American that they replaced.
4. While I say we are moving towards an information and services economy, the idea that we are deindustrializing is a myth. We're becoming more productive. It is easier for anyone in this country to create more wealth than ever. Do n
I think prayer should be in schools that are private religious institutions, but in public schools? Of course not. However, I am against public schools for various reasons. Inefficiency and ever increasing costs, being primary factors.
The battle cry of the right: prayer belongs in private schools and all schools should be private. Oh, and to hell with any kid who was born into poverty. No school for them.
It is not the proper role of government to say what can and cannot go on in schools,
So I guess that you'll be voting against "No Child Left Behind" Bush, right?
business
What right does that evil government have to say you can't expose your illegal immigrant workers to carcinogens during their 12 hour, no-restroom-break shifts?
, or in my household.
Damn those anti-incest laws!
The role of government is to defend property rights, and to defend the rights of the individual.
In your world, perhaps. But in the U.S., we have over two centuries of legislative and judicial activity that defines government as being there to help people, not just defend their property. As to defending individual rights, does Bush's support of the Patriot Act count as another reason he should be ousted?
Could you claim a woman has the right to kill what would become a child [with the logic that with proper care a fetus would become a child, just like with proper care a child would become an adult] even if she did not want the child?
Yes. I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with my sperm ending up in the end of a condom -- even though one of them could have resulted in a child.
If you can claim that the woman has no responsibility for the child that she did not want,
Logical leap: First it was a fetus that could become a child and now it's a "child." I don't play those games.
could you then honestly say that it is my responsibility to take care of my fellow man, most of which I could care less about... and perhaps should [care less about]?
I doubt that you "could care less" about your fellow man than you do now. Sorry, bud, but you are part of a society and a society takes care of its weak.
In simpler words, if a woman does not have to take care of something forced upon her in the case of an infant, why should I?
I don't recall stating that women should be allowed to abandon babies.
These tax breaks are not just for the wealthy, or for the corporate elite, they're for everybody. Unfortunately, they're not tax breaks as they are a form of welfare. Call it corporate welfare if you'd like, but don't fail to point out that it is fabricated as an illusion to assist all of us.
It was simply a means of buying votes from people too stupid to recognize that they were just taking money from their children, grandchildren, etc. And to get votes from rich greedy people.
Actually, the redistribution of wealth does not work. It is the artificial reduction of poverty. It begins to fail when the funds reducing poverty are cut off.
Such as what happens when you cut welfare programs to pay for tax cuts.
Since you claim to be a moral superior, then tell me, what is redistribution of wealth but stealing through taxes?
It's paying the cost of a society. It's recognizing that the weak sometimes need help and that the strong can provide it.
There are two ways that can allegedly reduce poverty. "Durable opportunities" as they are called by some, are opportunities that last a considerable amount of time (jobs and careers).
But aren't you arguing in favor of letting companies outsource jobs and careers out of the U.S. with no penalties, laws, or regulations to impede the job exodus? Aren't you saying "anything for a buck" when it comes to major corporations?
The second way to permanently reduce poverty is to increase pro
Now, Mr. Buffet may be a philanthropist, and he may have *so much money* that he no longer knows where to put it, but that is his opinion.
No, those are his morals. Something you apparently lack.
I imagine that if we asked Mr. Gates for his opinion, we may find an interesting contrast
I'm not interested in finding someone greedy and self-serving. I'm more interested in hearing from someone who speaks about values and ethics -- even when it it hits them in the wallet.
How about we let people keep their own damn money, and let them decide whether to donate it to charity?
No thanks. I'm not interested in a society where greed is rewarded monetarily. You shouldn't get to drive a nicer car than you neighbor simply because you chose to donate nothing to charity. All that the income tax system does is set the minimum participation level for you as a member of society. It keeps you from opting out of your societal obligations. Don't like it? Then move.
Mr. Gates has a right to his money (property rights).
If you're that delusional, I suggest that you take the matter to court where they can explain the rights of our democratically elected government to impose taxes.
Yes, but you are removing capital from the market.
No, you are not. You're just redirecting it. No one is setting it all ablaze on April 16. If it Bill Gates' taxes go to people in the form of welfare checks, you can rest assured that the money will be spent, adding capital back into the market. And more importantly, it wouldn't all go to Bill Gates. It would help pay the salaries of people at the grocery stores, the clothing stores, in doctors' offices, in department stores, in Walmarts, etc.
Yes, it does. Working for your own effort is fun, carrying someone elses lazy ass is not (slavery).
Not everyone who need government assistance is a "lazy ass" you insensitive, ignorant prick. There are plenty of people who took welfare only as a last resort to feed their families while they did everything that they could to find work. If you get to keep 65% of the money you bring in, you're still getting rewarded for your efforts. Do you honestly think that wages would be as high if they eliminated income tax tomorrow? Hell no. The day that they eliminate income tax is the day that employers start cutting wages.
Teach a man to fish (get a job), you feed him for a lifetime.
Part of the welfare system is job training, but I suppose that you're against that, too.
Some one tag on if I'm wrong, the comments around here like "get a job you lazy bastard" and "economic girly men" and "stop whining" don't sound very compassionate to me, nor do they seem very Christian.
;-)
As an atheist, what can I say but "Amen!"?
Maybe the 'just train for a new job' argument would be valid if The State provided free education to all interested. Sorry for going kinda off topic.
It's not off-topic at all and you hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of conservatives that I've met want to blame the poor, not lend them a helping hand.
First off, you won. There are 0 examples of this.
.... where is this going?
.. and I'm not talking about monetarily, either.
Thank you. Words to that effect have probably seldom been read here.
And that fact leaves us with the obvious - that since there are none, then
I don't know. You tell me. My whole point was was to counter the claim that "You and i know it only takes like 2 days to set up a profitable business that can employ others."
That capitalism doesn't work? That some guy who said that there is one is wrong, and capitalist and therefore capitalism is wrong?
Not at all. Capitalism works fine when there are reasonable laws and government regulations to protect the workers from having their standards of living eroded by greed at the top. Something is wrong when people with decades of experience are being laid off at age 60+ just so that the companies that they helped make profitable can become slightly more so.
Man, go brush up on how to think in the first place then maybe you can get your own life working in some successful direction
My life is fine. No need to get insulting.