You are a moron if you use paypal to run a business including the payroll, of all things. Read the fine print and you'll see that paypal IS NOT A BANK. They don't have to follow bank rules, and your money is NOT FDIC INSURED.
Back in college I used to do first- and second-level tech support for an ISP. This was back in the mid-90's, so everybody was on dialup. Things being what they are, we would occasionally have outages. I remember getting a call from a guy who absolutely tried to tear me an asshole because of this: he was running his business over his $20/mo dialup line. No dialup, no internet, no money for him. He was *pissed*.
I am still amazed at how many people are so stupid as to depend upon others like that. This PayPal thing is the same way; if you depend on PayPal for your lifeblood, you are pretty much an idiot.
Dark atmosphere to modern sci-fi
on
Ask Neal Stephenson
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Classic era science fiction (Heinlein, Asimov, etc.) was notably more humanistic and positivistic in tone. In works from that era, the future was bright, challenges were overcome by clever individuals, and technology and science led humanity towards ever greater accomplishments. Now, however, science fiction tends to paint a much bleaker picture of the future (and present). Why do you think this is, and do you think this is an accurate representation of potential futures?
for loops -- this is a biggy, until a GUI can easily do multiple operations on a subset of files, then I will always jump to the command line to get stuff done
Have you checked out the preview release of Tiger yet? Automator may do what you describe here, although I haven't personally had the opportunity to check it out yet.
I agree completely, though. It is difficult to match the speed of a CLI in competent hands.
HahahahahahaahaHAHAHAHAHAH! Tinfoil BODY SUIT! Not hat! BODYSUIT! HAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHA, oh my FUCKING god that shit was funny! And "kool-aide mug"? Dude, you're like talking JIM JONES and shit! BWAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA holy fucking shit you are absolutely fucking the SHIT, dude! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You SO fucking owned me! SPANKED my ass, niggah! God-DAMN! Scuse me while I pack my shit up and go live at home again, cuz I am deBASED, motherfucker! HAHAHAHAHA body suit. Shit.
That'll school me to fuck with the MASTAH, won't it?
Mr. Clinton sent his representatives to various forums (including the UN) in 1997 and 1998 during the height of the Iraq disarmament crisis in the 90s. In fact, the stated goal of Operation Desert Fox was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities. Secretary Albright actually stated several times that Iraq had WMDs and that Hussein should be taken out - see Albright's March 1997 speech to Georgetown University on the subject
Quick question: So what? They believed that he did in fact possess those weapons. They were wrong. But they didn't knowingly go before Congress and the American people and LIE about it. Being wrong is not the same as lying. The former requires ignorance of the correct answer. Show me where they knew what they were saying was false.
Oh, and by the way: you do realize that lying is wrong even when Republicans do it, right? Cuz from here it looks like you're saying "Well, maybe they did, but Clinton did, too!" And that's not really a justification. Just sayin.
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.".
Again: So what? Where's the lie? They were telling it as they saw it. They were NOT making bullshit claims about aluminum tubes that they knew were false and then pushing those claims upon an unskeptical public.
It just says the administration embraced a disputed theory, and there's really nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, you're right. No matter how much somebody screws up, it's all good. Their heart's in the right place. It's not the outcome that matters, it's the intent. And they'd never LIE to the American public. No way, uh-uh, couldn't, wouldn't happen. They're Christian. Christians don't lie. Why, that's just unthinkable. They wouldn't intentionally tell just one side of the story in order to advance their warmongering. God is guiding his hand, and God wouldn't let them be so wicked. Besides, them hippie Democrats are worse. No matter how much the Bush admin fucks up, they are still worth supporting, no matter what.
I'm not even going to go into the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed by President Clinton, which actually made the policy of the United States that of regime change in Iraq. I'm not going to go into the 16 UN Resolutions that the United States pushed since 1991 which stated Hussein was a threat.
Good, because it's completely irrelevant to the dicussion at hand, namely that cabinet members in the Bush administration deceived the American public into going to WAR by pushing data they KNEW to be false. That means that a whole bunch of people are fucking DEAD and Bush is responsible. You think that such crimes (or "mistakes" as you'd spin it) shouldn't be punished? We should just let it go? Too bad, so sad? No. Absolutely not. What Bush and his allies have done is a sin against God, Christ his Son, and humanity as a whole and I for one will not TOLERATE it. Politics can take a leap; the most fundamental morality is at stake.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is going to burn in hell for this. The blood of thousands is directly upon his shoulders.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence out there, because you're just a blind ideologue.
Blind ideologue, Bush hater, liberal media, media bias, etc., etc. Don't you get tired of finding ways of wimping out? You got a rebuttal to specific facts, then say it. Otherwise you just look like an intellectual lightweight. Oh, and I noticed you added me to your foes list, too. How typical. Conservatives just LOVE to do everything they can to soften opposing viewpoints. One need go no further than Free Republic to see THAT in action. ("Liberals do it, too." I know. That justifies everything.)
So what specifically do you challenge? Because from where I sit it looks like yet another variation on the "don't believe your lyin' eyes" mem that conservatives love to trot out whenever the facts are against them. You have a specific rebuttal, then speak up. Until then, shut yer whining yap.
One of the documents they had was a map of the Iraqi oil fields
Another set was lists of people who would be interested in buying that oil
And oh yeah, by the way, the guy heading up the task force is making mad cash in the forms of salary and stock options from Halliburton -- an oil company -- as he has been his entire tenure as VP.
Hell, even a conservative should be able to "connect the dots."
He got a golden handshake when he left Halliburton and chose to have it paid in installments (which is not unusual). Halliburton's eclusive contract with the government was broughr in by Clinton BTW. But then again, facts don't make good conspiracy theories
I know this won't get me in your good graces, but you are comPLETEly fucking stupid. Do you get ALL of your information from the Republican echo chamber? Is Google off-limits for you? Try this: 1) Google "cheney halliburton'. 2) Read. 3) Learn how Cheney profits. IRS tax forms and SEC filings are not "conspiracy theories", mmk?
As I recall, Clinton made the same "lies" about Iraq in front of Congress... or did you not know that??
When? Clinton never EVER testified before Congress, so right there you show you don't know what you're talking about. Sitting presidents don't.
And Senator Kerry has been on television several times, as far back as 1995 in fact, stating the same "lies".
When? When did John Kerry know that aluminum tubes were not capable of being used in nuclear weaponsmaking, but claimed they were so capable anyway, and did so in front of Congress? Do tell.
How can something be inflamatory anyways when these people actually made those statements? In this country, that's what we call telling the truth.
They were stating what they believed. When the Bush admin officials testified in front of Congress, they were intentionally LYING. Big difference. They had information beforehand that contradicted what they were saying, and can be proven to have known it.
But its obvious you've got the blind ideology stick shoved up your bum, so I don't think this post will make a bit of difference.
Shyah? Conservatives alwas find it so easy to find a hole to crawl into when the rhetoric fails to be convincing.
Which one of those people committed perjury to Congress? It's not what they believed that is at issue. It is that certain members of the Bush administration lied under oath.
It's flamebait because it's completely irrelevant and inflamatory. None of these people committed perjury in front of Congress about what they said. They were stating their beliefs, frequently based on information given to them by this administration. They weren't knowingly LYING to the Congress of the fucking United States so that we could be tricked into going to war.
You do know how much money Cheney has made from Halliburton while he's been VP, don't you?
I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone that Judicial Watch, that great thorn in the side of the Clinton administration, was able to get a FOIA request approved for the Cheney Energy Task force. This gives a LOT of credence to the "war for oil" thing:
So, before the war, the Vice President, like, has this task force thing, and they won't tell anybody what they talked about. But they had a map of the Iraqi oilfields AND lists of people who would be intersted in those fields. Oh, and the VIP himself? He's still pulling down mad money from Halliburton, to the tune of about half-a-mill a year.
But "War for Oil"? Man, that's just CRAZY talk right there. CRAZY.
The last time I went to vote there were over 40 positions up for election. Federal and state representatives, judges, justice of the peace, city council, school board, sheriff, county tax assessor, etc., etc. I have no idea who half of those people were, nor do I honestly have the time to research their various qualifications and suitability for the job. The cumulation of all those candidates is simply overwhelming. You HAVE to find the few positions for which you have the most interest and educate yourself about them. For the rest it's simply guesswork.
With straight party voting you are at least given the (semi) guarantee that the person you are voting for approves of the party platform. It's better than a shot in the dark. Sanctimony aside, careful consideration of each candidate for every position is simply not a realistic expectation.
upporting the Kurds in their uprising (against Saddam) vs. Going after Saddam. I guess I just don't see a sizeable difference here. I don't see any reason why the Kurds (given the proper support) wouldn't have gone after him as well, seeing that he had previously gassed countless numbers of them.
The Kurds did go after him. We didn't follow through on our promise to support them when they did. The Kurdish uprising happened after the Iraqi surrender in the Gulf War. They supported our invasion, and in fact did want us to go further. We told them that if they rose up against Saddam that we would help them out, then didn't follow through on that promise when they actually did rebel. The Kurds (and I) criticize Bush I for not following through with that promise, getting thousands of Kurds slaughtered in the process.
Yes, except Bush Sr. isn't in office now. And the irony of all of this is that George Jr. is now being criticized for doing exactly what George Sr. was criticized for NOT doing.
Not true. Bush I wasn't criticized by the Kurds for not going after Saddam. He was criticized for not supporting the Kurdish uprising when we said we would, leading to the deaths of many thousands of Kurds who were for our direct allies in that conflict (and the most recent.)
They blame Saddam and his cronies for the killings since 1991, believe it or not.
Overly simplistic. Of course the Kurds blame Saddam for the killings. But they *also* blame Bush Sr. for not supporting their uprising when they had been given tacit acknowledgement that we would provide such support. When the Kurds did revolt Bush specifically instructed our troops to stay out of the way. Pilots later reported watching from their cockpits as Iraqi helicopters wiped out large numbers of Kurdish rebels.
Everybody lost their minds after 9/11, Democrats included. The big difference is that the Democrats have seen the error of their ways and are attempting to make amends. The Republicans, on the other hand are pushing PATRIOT II, and Bush *still* defends every section of the original bill.
We are not a democracy. We are a very democratic republic. This is a very important point that many people misunderstand.
Every day, on keyboards throughout the country, people say the samedamnthing, over and over, never ending.
It's a cliche. It's been done. To death. Please, STFU. It's like the Republicans hate the word "democrat" and seek to change the discourse so that the very word brings negative associations ("Not a democracy, a republic!") whenever it is uttered.
You are a dog that has been conditioned to properly salivate at the word "democracy". Good boy. Back to Rush, now.
I don't know if you remember or not, but during the time when the war was still being debated the Bush administration made it quite clear that they were willing to go to war with Iraq without Congressional approval. They received such approval largely for political reasons, not because of any communicated belief in the constitutional process. I am particularly struck by this when comparing it against Eisenhower's quote:
"There is going to be no involvement of America in war unless it is a result of the constitutional process that is placed upon Congress to declare it. Now, let's have that clear."
Eisenhower wanted a formal declaration, something that this Congress did not, in fact, give, nor did Bush ask for it.
For what it's worth, I think Eisenhower was the last good Republican president.
However, and I'm not sure how to best say this, but I feel like everyone can only report from their own point of view.
This is of course true. The problem is when it is used as justification by those whose intentions are to deceive. Nor does it mean that we should abdicate our responsibility towards keeping other people honest. There is a difference between having a point of view and actively and intentionally deceiving the audience.
I am arguing that we should condemn the "point of view" that holds deception and rhetorical trickery to be acceptable. The underlying, however, theme is the tantamount importance of honesty: if the party in question can be confidently shown to have been consciously deceptive than that deceipt should be advertised. Lies are not a point of view, they are incorrect data.
The media bias is annoying, which is why I read liberal papers (Milwaukee Journal, NY Times, cnn.com) and watch liberal news shows (NBC, ABC, CBS) but listen to conservative radio.
To be blunt: that is a load of shit. A recent example illustrates this perfectly. Remember Sandy Berger? He was accused of stealing documents from the 9/11 Committee. The NYT and Washington Post both ran lengthy articles about this on their front pages. It led all three evening newsbroadcasts for two straight days. But after Berger was completely exonerated, what do you think happened? Nothing. Neither of the aforementioned papers ran the story at all, nor did the evening broadcasts make mention of this.
Liberal bias my ass.
To quote Bill Kristol: "The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Or to slap a cheap ad hominem onto critics: "Don't believe the criticisms news organization X is making of the GOP! They're just a part of the liberal media!"
The media is corporate, and by it's very nature conservative.
So I guess I'm presuming that Google, having everything automated, isn't trying for any particular political slant. If they're showing up with any unfortunate informational slant (including that when you search for almost anything, you'll get a couple porn sites in there), I'm presuming it's because of imperfect search technology.
I think the problem is that I phrased my original message poorly. I actually don't think Google has done anything wrong here, and agree with the entirety of your reply. What I was attempting to argue was that news organizations that present themselves as being balanced should be held up to those standards, and criticizing them when they do not meet those standards is the wholly appropriate and necessary.
I think that my rule on decriminalization is "if it is not physically addictive, legalize it." The devil is in the details, though. That would cover pot and mushrooms, but not coke, heroin, or *cough* tobacco. And since I don't think it will ever, EVER be -- or even should be, really -- reasonable to expect tobacco to get criminalized, that might be a better "rule of thumb" than basis for policy.
Not trying to troll here, I don't understand why people are trying to call shinanigans on Google, if they have a bias then that is their right to.
Sure, but if they paint themselves as being equananimous in their presentation then they should be held up to that standard, and criticized when they don't meet up to it. If they want to be biased one way or another then so be it, but they should be upfront about it. It's like Fox; it's not so much the fact that they are conservative I disagree with, it is that they are dishonest in saying they are fair. I actually subscribe to a couple of conservative magazines because of their quality, but they do not deny or try to hide their slant.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a moron if you use paypal to run a business including the payroll, of all things. Read the fine print and you'll see that paypal IS NOT A BANK. They don't have to follow bank rules, and your money is NOT FDIC INSURED.
Back in college I used to do first- and second-level tech support for an ISP. This was back in the mid-90's, so everybody was on dialup. Things being what they are, we would occasionally have outages. I remember getting a call from a guy who absolutely tried to tear me an asshole because of this: he was running his business over his $20/mo dialup line. No dialup, no internet, no money for him. He was *pissed*.
I am still amazed at how many people are so stupid as to depend upon others like that. This PayPal thing is the same way; if you depend on PayPal for your lifeblood, you are pretty much an idiot.
Classic era science fiction (Heinlein, Asimov, etc.) was notably more humanistic and positivistic in tone. In works from that era, the future was bright, challenges were overcome by clever individuals, and technology and science led humanity towards ever greater accomplishments. Now, however, science fiction tends to paint a much bleaker picture of the future (and present). Why do you think this is, and do you think this is an accurate representation of potential futures?
for loops -- this is a biggy, until a GUI can easily do multiple operations on a subset of files, then I will always jump to the command line to get stuff done
Have you checked out the preview release of Tiger yet? Automator may do what you describe here, although I haven't personally had the opportunity to check it out yet.
I agree completely, though. It is difficult to match the speed of a CLI in competent hands.
You SO fucking owned me! SPANKED my ass, niggah! God-DAMN! Scuse me while I pack my shit up and go live at home again, cuz I am deBASED, motherfucker! HAHAHAHAHA body suit. Shit.
That'll school me to fuck with the MASTAH, won't it?
Mr. Clinton sent his representatives to various forums (including the UN) in 1997 and 1998 during the height of the Iraq disarmament crisis in the 90s. In fact, the stated goal of Operation Desert Fox was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities. Secretary Albright actually stated several times that Iraq had WMDs and that Hussein should be taken out - see Albright's March 1997 speech to Georgetown University on the subject
Quick question: So what? They believed that he did in fact possess those weapons. They were wrong. But they didn't knowingly go before Congress and the American people and LIE about it. Being wrong is not the same as lying. The former requires ignorance of the correct answer. Show me where they knew what they were saying was false.
Oh, and by the way: you do realize that lying is wrong even when Republicans do it, right? Cuz from here it looks like you're saying "Well, maybe they did, but Clinton did, too!" And that's not really a justification. Just sayin.
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.".
Again: So what? Where's the lie? They were telling it as they saw it. They were NOT making bullshit claims about aluminum tubes that they knew were false and then pushing those claims upon an unskeptical public.
It just says the administration embraced a disputed theory, and there's really nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, you're right. No matter how much somebody screws up, it's all good. Their heart's in the right place. It's not the outcome that matters, it's the intent. And they'd never LIE to the American public. No way, uh-uh, couldn't, wouldn't happen. They're Christian. Christians don't lie. Why, that's just unthinkable. They wouldn't intentionally tell just one side of the story in order to advance their warmongering. God is guiding his hand, and God wouldn't let them be so wicked. Besides, them hippie Democrats are worse. No matter how much the Bush admin fucks up, they are still worth supporting, no matter what.
I'm not even going to go into the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed by President Clinton, which actually made the policy of the United States that of regime change in Iraq. I'm not going to go into the 16 UN Resolutions that the United States pushed since 1991 which stated Hussein was a threat.
Good, because it's completely irrelevant to the dicussion at hand, namely that cabinet members in the Bush administration deceived the American public into going to WAR by pushing data they KNEW to be false. That means that a whole bunch of people are fucking DEAD and Bush is responsible. You think that such crimes (or "mistakes" as you'd spin it) shouldn't be punished? We should just let it go? Too bad, so sad? No. Absolutely not. What Bush and his allies have done is a sin against God, Christ his Son, and humanity as a whole and I for one will not TOLERATE it. Politics can take a leap; the most fundamental morality is at stake.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is going to burn in hell for this. The blood of thousands is directly upon his shoulders.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence out there, because you're just a blind ideologue.
Blind ideologue, Bush hater, liberal media, media bias, etc., etc. Don't you get tired of finding ways of wimping out? You got a rebuttal to specific facts, then say it. Otherwise you just look like an intellectual lightweight. Oh, and I noticed you added me to your foes list, too. How typical. Conservatives just LOVE to do everything they can to soften opposing viewpoints. One need go no further than Free Republic to see THAT in action. ("Liberals do it, too." I know. That justifies everything.)
So what specifically do you challenge? Because from where I sit it looks like yet another variation on the "don't believe your lyin' eyes" mem that conservatives love to trot out whenever the facts are against them. You have a specific rebuttal, then speak up. Until then, shut yer whining yap.
No, but let's look at the whole picture here:
Hell, even a conservative should be able to "connect the dots."
He got a golden handshake when he left Halliburton and chose to have it paid in installments (which is not unusual). Halliburton's eclusive contract with the government was broughr in by Clinton BTW. But then again, facts don't make good conspiracy theories
I know this won't get me in your good graces, but you are comPLETEly fucking stupid. Do you get ALL of your information from the Republican echo chamber? Is Google off-limits for you? Try this: 1) Google "cheney halliburton'. 2) Read. 3) Learn how Cheney profits. IRS tax forms and SEC filings are not "conspiracy theories", mmk?
As I recall, Clinton made the same "lies" about Iraq in front of Congress... or did you not know that??
When? Clinton never EVER testified before Congress, so right there you show you don't know what you're talking about. Sitting presidents don't.
And Senator Kerry has been on television several times, as far back as 1995 in fact, stating the same "lies".
When? When did John Kerry know that aluminum tubes were not capable of being used in nuclear weaponsmaking, but claimed they were so capable anyway, and did so in front of Congress? Do tell.
How can something be inflamatory anyways when these people actually made those statements? In this country, that's what we call telling the truth.
They were stating what they believed. When the Bush admin officials testified in front of Congress, they were intentionally LYING. Big difference. They had information beforehand that contradicted what they were saying, and can be proven to have known it.
But its obvious you've got the blind ideology stick shoved up your bum, so I don't think this post will make a bit of difference.
Shyah? Conservatives alwas find it so easy to find a hole to crawl into when the rhetoric fails to be convincing.
Which one of those people committed perjury to Congress? It's not what they believed that is at issue. It is that certain members of the Bush administration lied under oath.
That is a crime. Not that Bush will care, though.
You do know how much money Cheney has made from Halliburton while he's been VP, don't you?
CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS (Their caps, not mine)
First three docs:
Iraq Oil Map.PDF
Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.2.PDF
Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.1.PDF
So, before the war, the Vice President, like, has this task force thing, and they won't tell anybody what they talked about. But they had a map of the Iraqi oilfields AND lists of people who would be intersted in those fields. Oh, and the VIP himself? He's still pulling down mad money from Halliburton, to the tune of about half-a-mill a year.
But "War for Oil"? Man, that's just CRAZY talk right there. CRAZY.
The last time I went to vote there were over 40 positions up for election. Federal and state representatives, judges, justice of the peace, city council, school board, sheriff, county tax assessor, etc., etc. I have no idea who half of those people were, nor do I honestly have the time to research their various qualifications and suitability for the job. The cumulation of all those candidates is simply overwhelming. You HAVE to find the few positions for which you have the most interest and educate yourself about them. For the rest it's simply guesswork.
With straight party voting you are at least given the (semi) guarantee that the person you are voting for approves of the party platform. It's better than a shot in the dark. Sanctimony aside, careful consideration of each candidate for every position is simply not a realistic expectation.
upporting the Kurds in their uprising (against Saddam) vs. Going after Saddam. I guess I just don't see a sizeable difference here. I don't see any reason why the Kurds (given the proper support) wouldn't have gone after him as well, seeing that he had previously gassed countless numbers of them.
The Kurds did go after him. We didn't follow through on our promise to support them when they did. The Kurdish uprising happened after the Iraqi surrender in the Gulf War. They supported our invasion, and in fact did want us to go further. We told them that if they rose up against Saddam that we would help them out, then didn't follow through on that promise when they actually did rebel. The Kurds (and I) criticize Bush I for not following through with that promise, getting thousands of Kurds slaughtered in the process.
Yes, except Bush Sr. isn't in office now. And the irony of all of this is that George Jr. is now being criticized for doing exactly what George Sr. was criticized for NOT doing.
Not true. Bush I wasn't criticized by the Kurds for not going after Saddam. He was criticized for not supporting the Kurdish uprising when we said we would, leading to the deaths of many thousands of Kurds who were for our direct allies in that conflict (and the most recent.)
They blame Saddam and his cronies for the killings since 1991, believe it or not.
Overly simplistic. Of course the Kurds blame Saddam for the killings. But they *also* blame Bush Sr. for not supporting their uprising when they had been given tacit acknowledgement that we would provide such support. When the Kurds did revolt Bush specifically instructed our troops to stay out of the way. Pilots later reported watching from their cockpits as Iraqi helicopters wiped out large numbers of Kurdish rebels.So yeah, they're a little bit bitter about that.
Everybody lost their minds after 9/11, Democrats included. The big difference is that the Democrats have seen the error of their ways and are attempting to make amends. The Republicans, on the other hand are pushing PATRIOT II, and Bush *still* defends every section of the original bill.
We are not a democracy. We are a very democratic republic. This is a very important point that many people misunderstand.
Every day, on keyboards throughout the country, people say the same damn thing, over and over, never ending. It's a cliche. It's been done. To death. Please, STFU. It's like the Republicans hate the word "democrat" and seek to change the discourse so that the very word brings negative associations ("Not a democracy, a republic!") whenever it is uttered.
You are a dog that has been conditioned to properly salivate at the word "democracy". Good boy. Back to Rush, now.
I don't know if you remember or not, but during the time when the war was still being debated the Bush administration made it quite clear that they were willing to go to war with Iraq without Congressional approval. They received such approval largely for political reasons, not because of any communicated belief in the constitutional process. I am particularly struck by this when comparing it against Eisenhower's quote:
"There is going to be no involvement of America in war unless it is a result of the constitutional process that is placed upon Congress to declare it. Now, let's have that clear."
Eisenhower wanted a formal declaration, something that this Congress did not, in fact, give, nor did Bush ask for it.
For what it's worth, I think Eisenhower was the last good Republican president.
However, and I'm not sure how to best say this, but I feel like everyone can only report from their own point of view.
This is of course true. The problem is when it is used as justification by those whose intentions are to deceive. Nor does it mean that we should abdicate our responsibility towards keeping other people honest. There is a difference between having a point of view and actively and intentionally deceiving the audience.
I am arguing that we should condemn the "point of view" that holds deception and rhetorical trickery to be acceptable. The underlying, however, theme is the tantamount importance of honesty: if the party in question can be confidently shown to have been consciously deceptive than that deceipt should be advertised. Lies are not a point of view, they are incorrect data.
The media bias is annoying, which is why I read liberal papers (Milwaukee Journal, NY Times, cnn.com) and watch liberal news shows (NBC, ABC, CBS) but listen to conservative radio.
To be blunt: that is a load of shit. A recent example illustrates this perfectly. Remember Sandy Berger? He was accused of stealing documents from the 9/11 Committee. The NYT and Washington Post both ran lengthy articles about this on their front pages. It led all three evening newsbroadcasts for two straight days. But after Berger was completely exonerated, what do you think happened? Nothing. Neither of the aforementioned papers ran the story at all, nor did the evening broadcasts make mention of this.
Liberal bias my ass.
To quote Bill Kristol: "The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Or to slap a cheap ad hominem onto critics: "Don't believe the criticisms news organization X is making of the GOP! They're just a part of the liberal media!"
The media is corporate, and by it's very nature conservative.
So I guess I'm presuming that Google, having everything automated, isn't trying for any particular political slant. If they're showing up with any unfortunate informational slant (including that when you search for almost anything, you'll get a couple porn sites in there), I'm presuming it's because of imperfect search technology.
I think the problem is that I phrased my original message poorly. I actually don't think Google has done anything wrong here, and agree with the entirety of your reply. What I was attempting to argue was that news organizations that present themselves as being balanced should be held up to those standards, and criticizing them when they do not meet those standards is the wholly appropriate and necessary.
I understand, and I actually did read the article. I was speaking more in general terms of accountability than accusing Google of any impropriety.
I think that my rule on decriminalization is "if it is not physically addictive, legalize it." The devil is in the details, though. That would cover pot and mushrooms, but not coke, heroin, or *cough* tobacco. And since I don't think it will ever, EVER be -- or even should be, really -- reasonable to expect tobacco to get criminalized, that might be a better "rule of thumb" than basis for policy.
Not trying to troll here, I don't understand why people are trying to call shinanigans on Google, if they have a bias then that is their right to.
Sure, but if they paint themselves as being equananimous in their presentation then they should be held up to that standard, and criticized when they don't meet up to it. If they want to be biased one way or another then so be it, but they should be upfront about it. It's like Fox; it's not so much the fact that they are conservative I disagree with, it is that they are dishonest in saying they are fair. I actually subscribe to a couple of conservative magazines because of their quality, but they do not deny or try to hide their slant.
To put it another way: Lying is wrong.