Well, that depends on your government, no?
I'm Canadian, so my government only lies about illicit cronyism. Canada's history has been based around business scams from the government - look at the Grand Trunk Railroad scam.
So not to be a troll or anything, but there are different kinds of lies from government. The Orwellian crap coming out of the US government is lies on a completely different plane, like the whole 'we never said stay the course' meme they're trying to push.
In a sense, you are correct:
"Government tells truth. News at 11." would be news!
Aliens come to discover - humanity tasty?...I guess the environment WAS important.
Hi honey, I'm home. WHO'RE YOU!!?!?!
Meek shall Inherit the Earth. Suckers.
Should have checked the fine print.
Suicide bombers have bad retirement plans.
Man missing leg knows shortest route.
Damn. I should have backed up.
Man discovers divine plan. Kinda incomplete.
You're trapped by your genes. Ha!
Should have supported the gun registry.
If only the instructions had mentioned...
Don't eat yellow snow, he thought.
Built by the lowest bidder... okay.
That's one small step for man...
Radioactive spider? Peter Parker has Leukemia.
Re:I don't own a television
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
I dunno. It depends on what you refer to as mainstream media. The New York Time's Judy Miller, as a shill for the Bush admin's ill-advised war, Washington Post stories and editorials straight from the admin mouthpieces, Sunday AM talk shows on ALL channels devoid of any balance....
1 = Mainstream media 2 = Fox news
3 = BBC
4 = CBC
5 = Half-way decent blogs, like Americablog, Eschaton, and DailyKos
That's why these days, I scarcely watch CNN, never watch Fox (except via Media Matters For America or CrooksAndLiars, for educational purposes), and spend most of my time fact-checking the blogs via the Beeb and CBC. And it's particularly pathetic that one of the best sources for news is The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.
Mainstream corporate-owned American media outlets are just tools of the powers that be. And sad to say, it's all about horse races and who is loudest, with the nastiest put-downs and distorted "facts", to determine the winner of a debate. It has NOTHING to do with accuracy, fact, and informed opinion.
I tend to feel that the "Left" side of the equation offers far more reality-based views than the "Right" side of the equation. The rest of the western world, however, wonders in amazement at how Americans have managed to distill the entire political spectrum down to two polar alternatives (which really aren't that far apart to begin with).
And yeah, off-topic. I'm glad shows like Futurama come back - their viewpoints are often pretty temporal, and balanced.
I was at a talk given by them this AM. They've got a good solution. Don't talk politics to each other.
See my blog (not to be a blogwhore) for a more detailed write-up of their talk.
I wouldn't want to be married to someone THAT different, but it really seems to work for them. Plus, they've got good reasons not to go to each other's party events. What a great excuse. I hate going to my girlfriend's company outings.:)
I'm not complaining. I have a job, and it's as secure it can be, these days.
I'm just saying that outsourcing is a very short-sighted approach, one which will have far more negative repercussions than an intelligent plan which penalizes companies for outsourcing - or at least prevents them from getting benefits. Even the playing field a bit more for local programmers, and cut out corporate charity. You can hardly consider Dell a US company if it sends its jobs overseas.
We are likely reading two different slashdots, akin to All In The Family. Each of us sees it through glasses coloured by our political views.
Retrain is feasible, but a poor long-term strategy. When a country loses its developer base, it becomes too dependent on foreign skills. What if a war were to erupt between the US and China or India? Would you trust e-Voting to Indian programmers? (Well, to be fair I wouldn't trust it to the current crop of US programmers).
While the cost of living is lower in those countries, it would not be possible to work there and move back. It's a one-way trip. You may live well there on what you make, but you won't be able to support your family here - and you won't be able to accumulate any savings worth anything here.
As to earmarking funds for retraining, isn't that a good thing? Do you want everyone to work for Walmart?
And regarding extending unemployment benefits, isn't that necessary in these jobless days?
Giving people the chance to retrain and get a new job simply makes sense. You need a middle class in order to support a society through taxes. And a society with a larger middle class is a lot more socially stable.
And that wasn't in the article - the article merely supported sending jobs overseas, by specious reasoning, at best.
Economics is a field which is rife with politically motivated false logic.
i.e., come up with a conclusion, and then find arguments to sell it.
An earlier post mentions the utter failure of supply-side economics being used to sell Reagan's tax cuts. Something similar's underway with Bush Jr.
What we have here is a president, who said earlier that outsourcing jobs is good for America. He did so, because to his level of interest, namely his corporate sponsors, it is.
Now in contested campaign season, in the midst of the biggest job loss seen since the Great Depression, we see another paper which justifies that this is good.
Economists may be more suited than geeks to analyze and interpret economic data, but geeks are pretty good at figuring out spin.
I just can't see how encouraging this environment will be good. You need people to have decent paying jobs to be able to afford to buy these products. If Microsoft canned all it's domestic programmers and shipped Office development overseas, you have a bunch of unemployed programmers who can't afford to buy Office, and a bunch of programmers overseas who aren't paid enough to be able to afford Office. (Yeah, this may be a bad example, don't take it literally).
I used to think the same thing about South Park. But they did the movie format well - and even a good two-parter (the "Do The Handicapped Go To Hell?/Probably" episodes).
The Simpsons also did a good two-parter with the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" episodes. Hopefully, they'll go for something as 'epic'.
I dunno. They did seem to allude to this a bit in Ep. 2 - I think they had Liam Neeson say "Anakin, no!" when he went nuts over those Tusken raiders.
Or was I the only one who heard that?
Maybe the implication was that a jedi needed time to prepare to fade away. Kenobi took some prep-time in Ep 4, and Yoda had all the time he needed. Most of the jedi we saw die in Ep. 2 were taken by surprise. (Though they shouldn't have been - they really did charge into a terrible tactical situation).
I think there's a distinction between the theft of physical property, and violation of copyright.
Also, there's the notion of jurisdiction - a store has finite and defined private property bounds, whereas this smacks more of corporate-sponsored vigilantism. How much longer before the RIAA brownshirts start breaking down the doors of houses in their pursuit?
And what happens if they decide to prosecute? Who will be able to say due process was followed?
I'm a Canadian, and my prints have been on record for months - I was nailed at the border 'trying to enter without proper labour certification' and rebuffed. I was actually going to do a job-shadow, learning from an American colleague, working on American technology (read: not stealing any jobs from the US). The border guard was over-zealous - try appealing that!
Got printed, mug-shot, interrogated, tagged, and released, back into the Canadian wild.
Ironically, the same stringent policies are not applied to companies who are outsourcing overseas as to individuals who are coming INTO the US (who would thus be spending much of the money they earned within the US).
Now, there's a permanent flag against me, and everytime I try to get into the US, I get grilled.
I'm happy Saddam is captured, and I hope he will be brought to (international) justice.
But the capture of Saddam had nothing to do with the ever-changing alleged reasons for this war - causing the deaths of thousands, and suffering of millions.
Frankly, I'm more interested in seeing the Bush administration tried for their crimes... for instance, lying to congress to start this war (an impeachable offense), obstruction of justice in the findings on 9/11, and the release of the name of a covert CIA agent married to Ambassador Wilson in childish retaliation to his divulging the truth about the Niger yellow cake (which is treasonous).
Not to mention the shady dealings with the Energy commissions and undermining of the US socio-economic structure...
And of course, there's also the attempt to undermine democracy.
And of course, there's Guantanamo - which certainly qualifies as flagrant human rights violations.
It happened before, when Kim Campbell became the first prime minister of Canada, succeeding Brian Mulroney. In Canada, the party leader is prime minister. You might say that it's a Canadian tradition.
In Quebec, there was a slightly different story when Lucien Bouchard stepped down in his first year, leaving Bernard Landry, as an unelected Premier for the remainder of the term (which was what? 4 years?).
Like George W. Bush, Bernard Landry far overstepped his non-mandate to introduce vast, sweeping changes to Quebec... and hopefully, like George W. Bush, Bernard Landry was swept out of office when his term expired.
And the Conservative Party, until recently included the branches in the West (Canadian Alliance, formerly Reform), as well as in Quebec, currently known as Bloc Quebecois. In this case, there was a reunification of that party - which is more like a consolidation of the opposition party. The opposition party was a regional one - now it is more of a national one (except Quebec). Still within the bounds of legality, and under the constitution!
We'll see how the voters feel about it presently - though in all likelihood, we'll see the new (unelected) Prime Minister get his mandate.
It will be interesting to see how the new "conservatives" handle their ideological and policy differences.
The bottom line is that while you might see gerrymandering occur in Canada (like what occasionally happens in Quebec), you won't see an election fiasco like Florida 2000.
Of course, like the Quebec referendum, you might get a very cryptic question on which you can vote.
And I am delighted that Canadian politics is far less interesting than American politics!
Well... occasionally the Prime Minister must act as his own Secret Service...
Slashdot Mirror
>This is not even news.
Well, that depends on your government, no?
I'm Canadian, so my government only lies about illicit cronyism. Canada's history has been based around business scams from the government - look at the Grand Trunk Railroad scam.
So not to be a troll or anything, but there are different kinds of lies from government. The Orwellian crap coming out of the US government is lies on a completely different plane, like the whole 'we never said stay the course' meme they're trying to push.
In a sense, you are correct:
"Government tells truth. News at 11." would be news!
Best I've got...
...I guess the environment WAS important.
Here are some of mine...
Not fiction. Soylent Green is people.
The government lies. News at 11.
Last words... "Don't push this button?"
Matches right. Keep Away From Children.
I did it for the insurance.
Aliens come to discover - humanity tasty?
Hi honey, I'm home. WHO'RE YOU!!?!?!
Meek shall Inherit the Earth. Suckers.
Should have checked the fine print.
Suicide bombers have bad retirement plans.
Man missing leg knows shortest route.
Damn. I should have backed up.
Man discovers divine plan. Kinda incomplete.
You're trapped by your genes. Ha!
Should have supported the gun registry.
If only the instructions had mentioned...
Don't eat yellow snow, he thought.
Built by the lowest bidder... okay.
That's one small step for man...
Radioactive spider? Peter Parker has Leukemia.
I'd say
1 = Mainstream media 2 = Fox news
3 = BBC
4 = CBC
5 = Half-way decent blogs, like Americablog, Eschaton, and DailyKos
Whereby... as far as factual accuracy we have...
1 = Mainstream media 2 = Fox news3 = BBC
4 = CBC
5 = Half-way decent blogs, like Americablog, Eschaton, and DailyKos
That's why these days, I scarcely watch CNN, never watch Fox (except via Media Matters For America or CrooksAndLiars, for educational purposes), and spend most of my time fact-checking the blogs via the Beeb and CBC. And it's particularly pathetic that one of the best sources for news is The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.
Mainstream corporate-owned American media outlets are just tools of the powers that be. And sad to say, it's all about horse races and who is loudest, with the nastiest put-downs and distorted "facts", to determine the winner of a debate. It has NOTHING to do with accuracy, fact, and informed opinion.
I tend to feel that the "Left" side of the equation offers far more reality-based views than the "Right" side of the equation. The rest of the western world, however, wonders in amazement at how Americans have managed to distill the entire political spectrum down to two polar alternatives (which really aren't that far apart to begin with).
And yeah, off-topic. I'm glad shows like Futurama come back - their viewpoints are often pretty temporal, and balanced.
From all his talk about "it's hard work" (combined of course, with his utter incompetance), well... You deserve a +6 mod.
I'm Canadian, so I say it should be used for a Tim Hortons. Maybe a Harvey's.
I was pretty sure that the Zahn books were considered "canon".
Or Willow, which was also kinda fun.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change" -Peter Griffin
"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"
There are plenty of other good ones to ask, but this one has a $2,300 bounty on it. If my question is moderated up, to I get to share the bounty?
[bribe mode] If so, I'll split it with those who mod me. [/bribe mode]
You can buy some picks here, if you claim you're a locksmith.
They don't do a 'terrorist' background check.
I was at a talk given by them this AM. They've got a good solution. Don't talk politics to each other.
:)
See my blog (not to be a blogwhore) for a more detailed write-up of their talk.
I wouldn't want to be married to someone THAT different, but it really seems to work for them. Plus, they've got good reasons not to go to each other's party events. What a great excuse. I hate going to my girlfriend's company outings.
No problem.
For the NYT, you can use
user: gorevidal
pass: gorevidal
This one's a NYT dummy account which gives regular access.
-C.
I'm not complaining. I have a job, and it's as secure it can be, these days.
I'm just saying that outsourcing is a very short-sighted approach, one which will have far more negative repercussions than an intelligent plan which penalizes companies for outsourcing - or at least prevents them from getting benefits. Even the playing field a bit more for local programmers, and cut out corporate charity. You can hardly consider Dell a US company if it sends its jobs overseas.
We are likely reading two different slashdots, akin to All In The Family. Each of us sees it through glasses coloured by our political views.
Retrain is feasible, but a poor long-term strategy. When a country loses its developer base, it becomes too dependent on foreign skills. What if a war were to erupt between the US and China or India? Would you trust e-Voting to Indian programmers? (Well, to be fair I wouldn't trust it to the current crop of US programmers).
While the cost of living is lower in those countries, it would not be possible to work there and move back. It's a one-way trip. You may live well there on what you make, but you won't be able to support your family here - and you won't be able to accumulate any savings worth anything here.
As to earmarking funds for retraining, isn't that a good thing? Do you want everyone to work for Walmart?
And regarding extending unemployment benefits, isn't that necessary in these jobless days?
Giving people the chance to retrain and get a new job simply makes sense. You need a middle class in order to support a society through taxes. And a society with a larger middle class is a lot more socially stable.
And that wasn't in the article - the article merely supported sending jobs overseas, by specious reasoning, at best.
Yeah, with a but.
Economics is a field which is rife with politically motivated false logic. i.e., come up with a conclusion, and then find arguments to sell it. An earlier post mentions the utter failure of supply-side economics being used to sell Reagan's tax cuts. Something similar's underway with Bush Jr.
What we have here is a president, who said earlier that outsourcing jobs is good for America. He did so, because to his level of interest, namely his corporate sponsors, it is.
Now in contested campaign season, in the midst of the biggest job loss seen since the Great Depression, we see another paper which justifies that this is good.
Economists may be more suited than geeks to analyze and interpret economic data, but geeks are pretty good at figuring out spin.
I just can't see how encouraging this environment will be good. You need people to have decent paying jobs to be able to afford to buy these products. If Microsoft canned all it's domestic programmers and shipped Office development overseas, you have a bunch of unemployed programmers who can't afford to buy Office, and a bunch of programmers overseas who aren't paid enough to be able to afford Office. (Yeah, this may be a bad example, don't take it literally).
If it's a pilot project, why are the passengers checked?
The Simpsons also did a good two-parter with the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" episodes. Hopefully, they'll go for something as 'epic'.
Or was I the only one who heard that?
Maybe the implication was that a jedi needed time to prepare to fade away. Kenobi took some prep-time in Ep 4, and Yoda had all the time he needed. Most of the jedi we saw die in Ep. 2 were taken by surprise. (Though they shouldn't have been - they really did charge into a terrible tactical situation).
And what happens if they decide to prosecute? Who will be able to say due process was followed?
Got printed, mug-shot, interrogated, tagged, and released, back into the Canadian wild.
Ironically, the same stringent policies are not applied to companies who are outsourcing overseas as to individuals who are coming INTO the US (who would thus be spending much of the money they earned within the US).
Now, there's a permanent flag against me, and everytime I try to get into the US, I get grilled.
-C.
Works for me.
You can always go here to see the trailers.
Then again, there's always Bit Torrent.
But the capture of Saddam had nothing to do with the ever-changing alleged reasons for this war - causing the deaths of thousands, and suffering of millions.
Frankly, I'm more interested in seeing the Bush administration tried for their crimes... for instance, lying to congress to start this war (an impeachable offense), obstruction of justice in the findings on 9/11, and the release of the name of a covert CIA agent married to Ambassador Wilson in childish retaliation to his divulging the truth about the Niger yellow cake (which is treasonous).
Not to mention the shady dealings with the Energy commissions and undermining of the US socio-economic structure...
And of course, there's also the attempt to undermine democracy.
And of course, there's Guantanamo - which certainly qualifies as flagrant human rights violations.
In Quebec, there was a slightly different story when Lucien Bouchard stepped down in his first year, leaving Bernard Landry, as an unelected Premier for the remainder of the term (which was what? 4 years?).
Like George W. Bush, Bernard Landry far overstepped his non-mandate to introduce vast, sweeping changes to Quebec... and hopefully, like George W. Bush, Bernard Landry was swept out of office when his term expired.
And the Conservative Party, until recently included the branches in the West (Canadian Alliance, formerly Reform), as well as in Quebec, currently known as Bloc Quebecois. In this case, there was a reunification of that party - which is more like a consolidation of the opposition party. The opposition party was a regional one - now it is more of a national one (except Quebec). Still within the bounds of legality, and under the constitution!
We'll see how the voters feel about it presently - though in all likelihood, we'll see the new (unelected) Prime Minister get his mandate.
It will be interesting to see how the new "conservatives" handle their ideological and policy differences.
The bottom line is that while you might see gerrymandering occur in Canada (like what occasionally happens in Quebec), you won't see an election fiasco like Florida 2000.
Of course, like the Quebec referendum, you might get a very cryptic question on which you can vote.
And I am delighted that Canadian politics is far less interesting than American politics! Well... occasionally the Prime Minister must act as his own Secret Service...
I wouldn't have clicked the link if you hadn't mentioned it... now I want eyeball soap!
I think it's like the whole "Man, that tastes awful, wanna try some?" school of thought...