You're right, brands are useful. I think what most anti-brand people object to, even if they don't phrase it this way, is the way that marketers and PR people can use branding to cover flaws. In a way I think this is what you mean about lifestyle-attachment. Say Colgate makes a great toothpaste, but their manufacturing is done in some 3rd-world country with anti-union tactics and dirty facilities. In the US, they present Colgate as *the* toothpaste, and everyone *has* to have it. No one notices what they're doing, and when some people do they don't have enough money to get the word out, and even if they can, Colgate's brand has become so huge that no one cares.
Brands can be too powerful. Perhaps weilding them in certain ways should be regulated. And now I'll get hanged for mentioning the R word:)
I think adbusters.org has a good solution to try, though - their "black spot sneaker" is an attempt to create a competing "fair trade" brand and use it to make a point about Nike...
mod parent up - how can anyone be so naive? Reputations get ruined on national television in the USA all the time, with no proof whatsoever. How many times a day do we hear the word "allegations" in connection with some person or company? Allegation basically means "accused without proof".
And the media loves this stuff. They get to tell/sell simple stories that the uneducated public understands, with a good guy/bad guy, never mind if any of it is true.
Making unproven allegations is one of the most basic tried-and-true PR methods. Don't like someone? Sully their name. Don't matter if it's true.
I would think most Slashdot readers would know better.
You're right about that; although back then I think there were people in the military-industrial complex who were egging that on a bit. But you're right.
Yes, but - more specifically - Republican presidential administrations do have a half-century history of lying in ways that greatly damage the country. Watergate, Iran-Contra, WMDs. I can't think of any comparable lying by Democratic administrations. Granted, there have been more Republican administrations, but face it, either the Democrats are better at it, or they've really only been lying about sex from time to time.
Or perhaps I need to be educated about the equivalent great controversial Democratic lies...
Insightful? Excuse me? Mods, are you smoking crack? There was no insight in this post. The poster barely contributed anything. Only three links, two dismissals, and bit of sarcasm.
The links are the only thing that could possibly be remotely insightful, but they're all to highly biased sources, parties interested in what they're preaching.
The first has been pointed out by others as a website sponsored by the coal industry.
The second goes to the CATO Institute, hardly an unbiased source on anything. They are primarily funded by tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries. Their main function is to provide soundbites and other propaganda, conveniently free of references, for the media to use.
The third link goes to the White House. Enough said.
or Ken MacLeod or Alastair Reynolds or Kim Stanley Robinson or Octavia Butler or... there are so many (and they don't all have last names starting with B:)
It just goes to show that morals/values trump laws any day. Which is as it should be, laws being human-made anyway, and therefore capable of being changed to reflect human morals and values as they change.
What, like the source mentioned on the linked page? It says: "See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220)" After that, the page links to a FAQ with more such sources.
Why don't you just come out and say that you prefer to ignore sources with which you disagree?
I understand the point, I don't understand why it was being made. Who said anything about people who are having trouble feeding their kids also paying for internet access? The original poster never mentioned it.
You say the richest citizens pay the most taxes. Of course they do. They should. They benefit most from the services that taxes pay for (law, order, financial security (the Fed, SEC), military defense, and more).
Also, while they may pay a large chunk of taxes, individually they still pay less taxes in proportion to their earnings than poorer citizens.
If the total tax collected is $100, and a man who has $100 pays $1 in tax, and another man who has $1,000,000,000 pays $99 in tax, the rich man is paying 99% of the tax collected, but he's not really being taxed much. And if the $100 collected tax goes to pay for police to defend the rich man's wealth instead of health care to keep the poor man healthy enough to work, I don't think that's fair.
BTW, paying for health care would also help the rich man in the long run, because he's undoubtedly using the labor of the poor man in some way, and if the poor man's labor goes away because he's not healthy enough to work, there' goes a significant portion of the rich man's earnings.
Getting the wealthiest individuals (and corporations) in the country to fund a national health care program like every other civilized nation has would go a long way to helping the economy, and it wouldn't cost them too much.
Always remember, just because Ruch Limbaugh parrots the old "the rich pay the most taxes" line, it doesn't mean the rich are any worse off for it at the end of the day. They are wealthy beyond your most generous imagination.
I'm a Democrat, and I have to agree with the other comments here - while Kerry has had his moments (like sponsoring a pretty good campaign finance reform bill with the late Paul Wellstone), he's mostly just a typical wishy-washy "Washington Politician". If he's the Dem nominee, he'll just lose to Bush.
Bush's polls are fading, so maybe Kerry would have a chance, but the people around Bush like to play dirty, and with Kerry I fear this will just be 2000 all over again. Edwards or Dean would be a much better candidate against Bush. Kerry is like Bob Dole against Clinton in '96. Repubs wanted to get Clinton out, they hated him, and Dole had the Senate reume, but he didn't have what it would have taken to beat Clinton. I don't think Kerry has what it takes to beat the Bush machine.
There is nobody pure of principle in this world. I doubt it even of Mother Theresa, and I've heard even Ghandi corresponded with Hitler on at least one occasion.
The measure of a person is not their words but their actions. The coverups and lies of the Bush administration far outweigh the current primary maneuverings of the Democratic candidates. Even respectable Republicans have begun to question Pres. Bush. I don't see how any respectable conservative can side with massive deficits and deceit of the Bush neoconservatives. Even libertarians, with their penchant for reason-bending, are not defending his policies.
And the centrists of this great nation wake up and push their representatives to reform elections so other parties have a chance, unfortunately that means that Democrats are the only option for those who want to get rid of Bush. And Dean is the only one with a proven record of leadership and problem solving as the Gov. of Vermont, and the only one currently speaking to the source of our nation's ills: corporations writing our laws and running our media.
Anytime your budget deficit is already nearly half a trillion dollars, that's a bad time to do much of anything other than balance the budget. As soon as we've done that, *then* I agree with the parent - better things we could do here on Earth? Sure, but let's go anyway. We can do both, if we can only get our finances in order first.
You can't look at it that crassly, and I'll tell you why. I support welfare programs (though I think ours could be done better) for the reasons listed by the grandparent post. However, I am not on welfare. In fact, it's my tax money that's going to support welfare. Therefore, am I buying my own vote?
You are correct in a way, but that doesn't mean welfare serves no purpose and is wrong. I think it's an important part of our social infrastructure. I like to know that if distaster befalls me, there will be some sort of safety net there to help lift me up, that I won't be at the whim of the charity of the wealthy.
That doesn't mean our current welfare system is perfect. And I'll stop there...
There is such a thing as doing things for the wrong reasons, or at a bad time, or even both. I don't want the defense industry to get even richer off of this. I don't want to do it if we can't pay for it. If we had a balanced budget, I'd say, sure, let's even start a deficit to do some exploration and science - the returns will likely pay for it. But when you're already running a gigantic deficit, that's not the time to start a massive space program. This should come out of the military budget anyway, since they seem to be the ones best situated to really benefit from this.
Science & exploration, my ass. If a Democrat were running a huge deficit and rewarding the defense industry with such a program, and during an election year to top it off, I'd come down hard on his ass, too.
Well, my desire as originally stated in the parent's parent was that those in the humanities need to take vastly more science courses, even if they're all introductory in various areas. I merely balanced that by saying those in the sciences need to take a number of humanities courses. I'm quite aware that most places already have the latter requirements. That's why I put "more science for humanities" first...
I often feel very defensive of "the humanities" (and how fun it is to lump many different disciplines under one label!), mostly because I was a half-n-halfer in college: I studied Anthropology. I generally understood a lot of what "postmodernism" was about, but have never attempted to summarise it like this guy so deftly has here:
So, what are we to make of all this? I earlier stated that my quest was to learn if there was any content to this stuff and if it was or was not bogus. Well, my assessment is that there is indeed some content, much of it interesting. The question of bogosity, however, is a little more difficult. It is clear that the forms used by academicians writing in this area go right off the bogosity scale, pegging my bogometer until it breaks. The quality of the actual analysis of various literary works varies tremendously and must be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I find most of it highly questionable. Buried in the muck, however, are a set of important and interesting ideas: that in reading a work it is illuminating to consider the contrast between what is said and what is not said, between what is explicit and what is assumed, and that popular notions of truth and value depend to a disturbingly high degree on the reader's credulity and willingness to accept the text's own claims as to its validity.
This is the meat of the article, and, to my mind, accurately picks out that which is of value in the humanities.
As far as I'm concerned, the humanities need a major overhaul. Those majoring in english or art should have their science requirements increased beyond whatever they are now. At the same time, I think the sciency types of the world should be similarly forced to undertake a number of humanities courses. But the humanities teachers should be forced to explain themselves in terms as simple, obvious, and concise as the author did above.
Yes, they are semantics. Important semantics. Saying they are semantics does not dismiss my correction of what I said to be more in line with what I meant. Do not dismiss my correction and continue to discuss as if I meant what I originally said. It was a mistake, and if you cannot accept that, that's your problem. If I say something and you take it to mean something else, and I try to clarify my position, it is wrong of you to continue the discussion as if my clarification was meaningless.
As for hatred of Bush at Bush protests, of course that's what will be represented there. I'm sorry there are/were no Saddam protests in America, but if you would like to organize some, by all means, go ahead.
Yes, I agree we should correct our mistakes. I do not agree that there were no better ways of doing it, and I also do not think this is the only grievance that many Americans have against President Bush.
And back to the original subject, Ann Coulter is a hating liar. Michael Moore isn't much better. Al Franken is a little better, but I cut him some slack since he's from my home state. And that's all I have to say on this. Nice chatting with you.
Yes, I would like to correct my faulty phrasing. I do not dislike them both equally. But I do dislike them both. I should have left off the last word and then you would have understood me.
However, I do dislike Bush far more than you might wish I did, because I cannot forget that his father, his party, and some people who are working in his administration at the moment, are responsible for putting Hussein in the position he was in. If we could get Bush and those who work under him out of power, that might be the best investment we could make for a better, safer world altogether. We need to stop supporting tyrants for short-term gains. It is unacceptable.
As for saying Bush is "just as bad a ruler as Saddam", I didn't say he was just as bad - thanks for providing an example of the kind of word-twisting the far right as represented by Ann Coulter, Fox News, etc., has become known for.
Her premise isn't that being liberal is treasonous, it's that liberals almost always side with America's enemies. Which is pretty self evident to any rational person.
If that were true, liberals right now would be siding with President Bush. But most aren't (many "conservatives" aren't, either). BTW, here's a hint: liberals also not siding with Hussein. You're being presented with a false choice, between either the current administration or the "bad guy" they've chosen for you.
I don't like Hussein, but that doesn't mean I have to like Bush. I can dislike both equally.
As for Moore, Coulter, O'Reilly, Franken, and the rest, I wouldn't give my money to any of them. They're all the same, capitalizing off of the hate of Americans. I have to give Franken a couple of points for humor, though - Moore, Coulter, and the rest all seem to be filled with nothing but pure hatred. Coulter seems to lie the most, though, from what little I've seen on her website.
I say, let's try to bring American politics back to the rock solid foundation of cold hard facts. America can do better than these hate-fests...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you mean:
"Buy me, you miserable geek. I'm your only hope!"
Remember, it's Lea...
You're right, brands are useful. I think what most anti-brand people object to, even if they don't phrase it this way, is the way that marketers and PR people can use branding to cover flaws. In a way I think this is what you mean about lifestyle-attachment. Say Colgate makes a great toothpaste, but their manufacturing is done in some 3rd-world country with anti-union tactics and dirty facilities. In the US, they present Colgate as *the* toothpaste, and everyone *has* to have it. No one notices what they're doing, and when some people do they don't have enough money to get the word out, and even if they can, Colgate's brand has become so huge that no one cares.
:)
Brands can be too powerful. Perhaps weilding them in certain ways should be regulated. And now I'll get hanged for mentioning the R word
I think adbusters.org has a good solution to try, though - their "black spot sneaker" is an attempt to create a competing "fair trade" brand and use it to make a point about Nike...
mod parent up - how can anyone be so naive? Reputations get ruined on national television in the USA all the time, with no proof whatsoever. How many times a day do we hear the word "allegations" in connection with some person or company? Allegation basically means "accused without proof".
And the media loves this stuff. They get to tell/sell simple stories that the uneducated public understands, with a good guy/bad guy, never mind if any of it is true.
Making unproven allegations is one of the most basic tried-and-true PR methods. Don't like someone? Sully their name. Don't matter if it's true.
I would think most Slashdot readers would know better.
You're right about that; although back then I think there were people in the military-industrial complex who were egging that on a bit. But you're right.
Yes, but - more specifically - Republican presidential administrations do have a half-century history of lying in ways that greatly damage the country. Watergate, Iran-Contra, WMDs. I can't think of any comparable lying by Democratic administrations. Granted, there have been more Republican administrations, but face it, either the Democrats are better at it, or they've really only been lying about sex from time to time.
Or perhaps I need to be educated about the equivalent great controversial Democratic lies...
The media verifying claims? What world do you live on?
You're right - Republicans/conservatives know well enough to hide their money and amoral behavior in corporations.
Insightful? Excuse me? Mods, are you smoking crack? There was no insight in this post. The poster barely contributed anything. Only three links, two dismissals, and bit of sarcasm.
The links are the only thing that could possibly be remotely insightful, but they're all to highly biased sources, parties interested in what they're preaching.
The first has been pointed out by others as a website sponsored by the coal industry.
The second goes to the CATO Institute, hardly an unbiased source on anything. They are primarily funded by tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries. Their main function is to provide soundbites and other propaganda, conveniently free of references, for the media to use.
The third link goes to the White House. Enough said.
or Ken MacLeod or Alastair Reynolds or Kim Stanley Robinson or Octavia Butler or... there are so many (and they don't all have last names starting with B :)
It just goes to show that morals/values trump laws any day. Which is as it should be, laws being human-made anyway, and therefore capable of being changed to reflect human morals and values as they change.
What, like the source mentioned on the linked page? It says: "See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220)" After that, the page links to a FAQ with more such sources.
Why don't you just come out and say that you prefer to ignore sources with which you disagree?
I understand the point, I don't understand why it was being made. Who said anything about people who are having trouble feeding their kids also paying for internet access? The original poster never mentioned it.
Why do you assume the parent poster is speaking for himself?
You say the richest citizens pay the most taxes. Of course they do. They should. They benefit most from the services that taxes pay for (law, order, financial security (the Fed, SEC), military defense, and more).
Also, while they may pay a large chunk of taxes, individually they still pay less taxes in proportion to their earnings than poorer citizens.
If the total tax collected is $100, and a man who has $100 pays $1 in tax, and another man who has $1,000,000,000 pays $99 in tax, the rich man is paying 99% of the tax collected, but he's not really being taxed much. And if the $100 collected tax goes to pay for police to defend the rich man's wealth instead of health care to keep the poor man healthy enough to work, I don't think that's fair.
BTW, paying for health care would also help the rich man in the long run, because he's undoubtedly using the labor of the poor man in some way, and if the poor man's labor goes away because he's not healthy enough to work, there' goes a significant portion of the rich man's earnings.
Getting the wealthiest individuals (and corporations) in the country to fund a national health care program like every other civilized nation has would go a long way to helping the economy, and it wouldn't cost them too much.
Always remember, just because Ruch Limbaugh parrots the old "the rich pay the most taxes" line, it doesn't mean the rich are any worse off for it at the end of the day. They are wealthy beyond your most generous imagination.
I'm a Democrat, and I have to agree with the other comments here - while Kerry has had his moments (like sponsoring a pretty good campaign finance reform bill with the late Paul Wellstone), he's mostly just a typical wishy-washy "Washington Politician". If he's the Dem nominee, he'll just lose to Bush.
Bush's polls are fading, so maybe Kerry would have a chance, but the people around Bush like to play dirty, and with Kerry I fear this will just be 2000 all over again. Edwards or Dean would be a much better candidate against Bush. Kerry is like Bob Dole against Clinton in '96. Repubs wanted to get Clinton out, they hated him, and Dole had the Senate reume, but he didn't have what it would have taken to beat Clinton. I don't think Kerry has what it takes to beat the Bush machine.
Besides, he looks like an animatronic Lincoln.
There is nobody pure of principle in this world. I doubt it even of Mother Theresa, and I've heard even Ghandi corresponded with Hitler on at least one occasion.
The measure of a person is not their words but their actions. The coverups and lies of the Bush administration far outweigh the current primary maneuverings of the Democratic candidates. Even respectable Republicans have begun to question Pres. Bush. I don't see how any respectable conservative can side with massive deficits and deceit of the Bush neoconservatives. Even libertarians, with their penchant for reason-bending, are not defending his policies.
And the centrists of this great nation wake up and push their representatives to reform elections so other parties have a chance, unfortunately that means that Democrats are the only option for those who want to get rid of Bush. And Dean is the only one with a proven record of leadership and problem solving as the Gov. of Vermont, and the only one currently speaking to the source of our nation's ills: corporations writing our laws and running our media.
Dammit, I saw "HD DVD" and immediately thought "a Howard Dean DVD? Awesome!"
Anytime your budget deficit is already nearly half a trillion dollars, that's a bad time to do much of anything other than balance the budget. As soon as we've done that, *then* I agree with the parent - better things we could do here on Earth? Sure, but let's go anyway. We can do both, if we can only get our finances in order first.
You can't look at it that crassly, and I'll tell you why. I support welfare programs (though I think ours could be done better) for the reasons listed by the grandparent post. However, I am not on welfare. In fact, it's my tax money that's going to support welfare. Therefore, am I buying my own vote?
You are correct in a way, but that doesn't mean welfare serves no purpose and is wrong. I think it's an important part of our social infrastructure. I like to know that if distaster befalls me, there will be some sort of safety net there to help lift me up, that I won't be at the whim of the charity of the wealthy.
That doesn't mean our current welfare system is perfect. And I'll stop there...
There is such a thing as doing things for the wrong reasons, or at a bad time, or even both. I don't want the defense industry to get even richer off of this. I don't want to do it if we can't pay for it. If we had a balanced budget, I'd say, sure, let's even start a deficit to do some exploration and science - the returns will likely pay for it. But when you're already running a gigantic deficit, that's not the time to start a massive space program. This should come out of the military budget anyway, since they seem to be the ones best situated to really benefit from this.
Science & exploration, my ass. If a Democrat were running a huge deficit and rewarding the defense industry with such a program, and during an election year to top it off, I'd come down hard on his ass, too.
Well, my desire as originally stated in the parent's parent was that those in the humanities need to take vastly more science courses, even if they're all introductory in various areas. I merely balanced that by saying those in the sciences need to take a number of humanities courses. I'm quite aware that most places already have the latter requirements. That's why I put "more science for humanities" first...
This is the meat of the article, and, to my mind, accurately picks out that which is of value in the humanities.
As far as I'm concerned, the humanities need a major overhaul. Those majoring in english or art should have their science requirements increased beyond whatever they are now. At the same time, I think the sciency types of the world should be similarly forced to undertake a number of humanities courses. But the humanities teachers should be forced to explain themselves in terms as simple, obvious, and concise as the author did above.
Now, back to my botany studies...
Yes, they are semantics. Important semantics. Saying they are semantics does not dismiss my correction of what I said to be more in line with what I meant. Do not dismiss my correction and continue to discuss as if I meant what I originally said. It was a mistake, and if you cannot accept that, that's your problem. If I say something and you take it to mean something else, and I try to clarify my position, it is wrong of you to continue the discussion as if my clarification was meaningless.
As for hatred of Bush at Bush protests, of course that's what will be represented there. I'm sorry there are/were no Saddam protests in America, but if you would like to organize some, by all means, go ahead.
Yes, I agree we should correct our mistakes. I do not agree that there were no better ways of doing it, and I also do not think this is the only grievance that many Americans have against President Bush.
And back to the original subject, Ann Coulter is a hating liar. Michael Moore isn't much better. Al Franken is a little better, but I cut him some slack since he's from my home state. And that's all I have to say on this. Nice chatting with you.
Yes, I would like to correct my faulty phrasing. I do not dislike them both equally. But I do dislike them both. I should have left off the last word and then you would have understood me.
However, I do dislike Bush far more than you might wish I did, because I cannot forget that his father, his party, and some people who are working in his administration at the moment, are responsible for putting Hussein in the position he was in. If we could get Bush and those who work under him out of power, that might be the best investment we could make for a better, safer world altogether. We need to stop supporting tyrants for short-term gains. It is unacceptable.
As for saying Bush is "just as bad a ruler as Saddam", I didn't say he was just as bad - thanks for providing an example of the kind of word-twisting the far right as represented by Ann Coulter, Fox News, etc., has become known for.
Her premise isn't that being liberal is treasonous, it's that liberals almost always side with America's enemies. Which is pretty self evident to any rational person.
If that were true, liberals right now would be siding with President Bush. But most aren't (many "conservatives" aren't, either). BTW, here's a hint: liberals also not siding with Hussein. You're being presented with a false choice, between either the current administration or the "bad guy" they've chosen for you.
I don't like Hussein, but that doesn't mean I have to like Bush. I can dislike both equally.
As for Moore, Coulter, O'Reilly, Franken, and the rest, I wouldn't give my money to any of them. They're all the same, capitalizing off of the hate of Americans. I have to give Franken a couple of points for humor, though - Moore, Coulter, and the rest all seem to be filled with nothing but pure hatred. Coulter seems to lie the most, though, from what little I've seen on her website.
I say, let's try to bring American politics back to the rock solid foundation of cold hard facts. America can do better than these hate-fests...