I guess there is one thing that is more worrying than not serving in the military before becoming Commander in Chief, and that is to actually go AWOL when serving. It shows serious lack of judgement.
I would guess Bill Clinton's vice president knew more than Palin about emails and how to use the internet, and I am sure that Clinton was smart enough to let Al Gore have a say when the issue was technology.
Also, thanks for reminding us that Bill Clinton created an economy strong to face a small recession instead of collapsing all around us.
Would have been interesting to have the same benchmarks for Xubuntu, since that is the distribution that is targeted for computers where performens increase/decrease is very noticable.
"Nineteeneightyfour" is a general commentary from Orwell on totalitarian states, having witness both Stalin and Hitler in the time before his death. (Orwell died in 1949 after finishing the book in 1948). It is Orwell's insight into how a "perfect" totalitarian state should be run. If you want Orwell's thought about Stalin's Soviet, you should read "Animal Farm", which discusses how communism went from "all animals are equal" too "some are more equal than others".
When it comes to left and right, your examples are less than interesting.
* Ministry of Truth: Faux news?
* NewSpeak: Pro-life?
* DoubleThink: "Affirmative action" is OK for Bush, McCain and other from influential parents?
* ThoughtCrime: Either you are with us or you are against us. Don't dare to think otherwise.
* Family and sexual relationships: The daughter of a governor who wants to bann "explicit" sex-ed gets pregnant.
* Mild anti-semitism: To think that critizing Israels actions is the same as condemming jews.
Anyway, Orwell wrote a very important book about how a government can control its citizens. For people in the US you should read it and compare with what Bush/Cheney has done the last 8 years to "protect you against terrorists". When Obama is president, compare the book to what Obama does with the powers he inherents from Bush.
At the risk of being modded down to oblivion, I am still curious to how this effects popular theories like global warming.
Global warming is not popular, it is down right scary. If a group of scientists disprove that our use of hydrocarbons have a significant effect on global warming, these scientists will be extremely popular and probably share a Nobel Prize.
Crappy papers don't get much citations or attention in general. Also, a scientific article does not need to be crap even though it is later shown not to be correct. Even the greatest scientists have made wrong theories and connections.
Wow, headline grabbing, potential break-through scientific theories get a lot of scrutiny and citations from fellow scientists, and many of the theories fail the test of peer review. Daring theories are important for the further advances of science, but by definition most of them will fail.
Krugman is not denying that US is producing stuff in the article, but he is critizing the notion that the economy during Bush is growing in a healthy way and that the tax cuts for the rich is the reason it is growing. The claim from republicans on slashdot and other internet sites have been for years that the economy is growing almost as strong as during the Clinton years when measured in GDP, and some sort of notion that liberals that claim the economy is doing bad are whiners. What Krugman is pointing out is that the growth coming from borrowed money from China, is not used to increase the US's productivity, but to fund a war and a housing bubble. Today, I guess we can agree that Krugman was right, not the republican talkingheads.
The most interesting paragraph from the Krugman article is this one:
Now, any economics textbook will tell you that it's fine to borrow from abroad if the money is used to expand the economy's productive capacity. When 19th-century America borrowed from Europe to build railroads, it was also enhancing its ability to repay its debts later. But we aren't borrowing to build productive capacity. As a share of G.D.P., investment other than housing construction is below its average between 1980 and 2000, and way below its level at the end of the 1990's.
The Nobel Peace Prize by necessity will have to have a political tone. It is hard to envision peace anywhere without some sort of political settlement and agreement. Therefore, with a peace prize, you will have to give the award to politicians who have done more to create peace, or find "neutral" parties who try to reduce the damage of war/conflicts (Red Cross has got the prize four times in different settings).
It can seem strange today, but two such controversial politicians in its day were Gandhi and King jr. Gandhi never got the prize because of the oposition by GB (often considered the greatest mistake by the Nobel committee, greater than giving the price to Kissinger). MLK jr was at the time considered an extremely risky Nobel laureate since the civil rights issue was so explosive in the US at the time.
Yasir Arafat together with the Israeli got the prize since he sat down and actually tried to find political agreements to the never ending Palistinian problem. The prize was of course controversial, since Arafat was a terrorist/freedom fighter before he turned himself into a politician (the Israeli counter-parts where generals turned politicians). This prize was also controversial, since it was given before peace was actually reached (in this case in the Oslo process), and of course Arafat never achieved a final agreement. It is an example of the prize being used to encourage negotiations and to try to make the two parties negotiation a peaceful agreement stronger than the war-mongers, which some argue should be outside of the scope of the peace prize (i.e., no prize before final peace).
The peace price to Al Gore is an other example of the Nobel Peace Prize trying to expand on its scope (which is of course always controversial). Here the prize is given for pre-emptive work, trying to stop (in this case Global Warming) a cause for further war and troubles. The controversy here I guess is not because people in general have a hard time understanding that major change in the climate can cause war for resources, but because some people still think we should wait 50 years to see if human beings have any effect on the climate.
The Nobel Economy Price might be seen as political since economical philosophy is linked to other political views, but it is hard to argue that Friedman is not a brilliant economist even though he is also a liberal.
Yes, lets go back to the beginning. Even a simple warehouse guy like yourself understood what was ment by the sweeping generalization in the bar analogy. The generalization is the more surplus, the more the most rich should get back. Or in other words, the more you own, the more you should get from the government. Not considering that the rich already get most of the drinks and have the most benefit from police protection and other investments made by the government.
Since you are so proud to made a few bucks on a website, answer this, why should your kids get tax cuts just like Bush secured for people like himself (and who you most probably voted for), even if your kids chose not to work but just live of what you leave them? Why not instead have tax cuts for entrepreneurs who work in a warehouse but is ready to create new wealth and new business?
No, the anti-capitalist claim is that the rich who inherit all their wealth should get tax cuts while the entrepreneuric middle class should carry the cost. Like in the bar example, where the 9 in the middle class should pay more of the bill, even though the one filthy rich get all the drinks, and even though one of the nine is an entrepreneur who can create new bars. The funny thing is that people like you support that the rich who are getting richer, but in general like bush hardly show up for work, are getting away with it with your twisted understanding of capitalism.
No one is talking about taking the wealth away from a rich entrepreneur, but I am sure rich entrepreneurs are more than willing to pay their patriotic tax share to the society that made it possible for them to succeed. The more important point is that the entrepreneurs almost without exception comes from the middle class. So it is important that the tax relief help the middle class to make it possible for the hard working intelligent people to succeed.
To talk about it using politics as an example, you have a hard working intelligent president like Clinton who succeeded even though he came from the middle class. Then you have W bush who "succeeded" from his fathers connection, after being a failure in everything he has done with his inheritance. Clinton cut taxes not for himself, but for the middle class, and the economy boomed. Bush cut taxes for filthy rich like himself who got their wealth from inheritance, and the economy tanked. Any thing to learn from that?
This is plain stupid. We all believe in property rights etc. But if this analogy should have any reality, the 1 wealthy is wealthy because of the work done by the 9 others. And the lucky one gets all the drinks in the bar, while the 9 others share a half empty Budweiser left behind. And if the one wealthy decided to leave the bar, he will have to try to find a bar where there are 9 others that are willing to do all the work, while the one wealthy is drinking everything.
Someone should be fired for giving this David a PhD.
Well, I guess we now have established that you are neither smart or funny. The proof that banning knives makes sense, is that if Japan lift their ban more people are killed by knives. That one murder happens even when there is a ban, proofs nothing. Now, go out an buy one since you have such a small personality.
Be sure to ban both, and learn to cut steak with a spoon.
I guess you think you are funny and smart, but if you look at the history of the knives, the French king back then made it mandetory for table knives to not be sharp since so many killings happened at the dinner table. One link I found on a fast search: http://www.hospitalityguild.com/History/history_of_the_knife.htm. You see, if you have a deadly weapon easily available people die, strange eh?
We stopped being angry about that when Obama voted for it.
When you see stories like these: http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/08/the-cindy-mac-attack/, you understand why Obama had no reason to vote against a bill that had a majority anyway in the senate and that only would be taken out of context and used to attack Obama as being "different" than white McCain.
Oh, if you wonder, Obama never voted for cutting the funding to the troops.
Someone violated her privacy, broke the law, and distracted from other issues during the presidential election.
Palin wants to continue the policies of the current White House administration where everyones privacy can be violated by the White House without any consequences even though it breakes federal law. And by violating the air-heads yahoo account, it was shown that Palin has -- just like the current republicans in the White House -- used a non-governmental email account to hide how she uses the powers given her by her office. I feel hard to feel sorry for her and also, the finding is very telling about what kind of president she will be when McCain gets cancer and dies.
Actually, the republicans have been in charge for years doing less than nothing to get the US of their oil addiction, and now they want to take away tax credits for renewable energies, while they have given several huge tax breaks for oil companies over the yers, companies who making more money than any other corporations in the world history. And when the shit hits the fan, the repubs blame liberals for not letting them drill off-shore in 2015. Talk about leadership.
Invading and destabilising a major oil producing nation and neighbour to all the other big oil nations -- a nation that did not have anything to do with 911 -- is the kind of leadership that give you $4 gas prices. Republicans trying to blame Gore for how they voted are pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess there is one thing that is more worrying than not serving in the military before becoming Commander in Chief, and that is to actually go AWOL when serving. It shows serious lack of judgement.
I would guess Bill Clinton's vice president knew more than Palin about emails and how to use the internet, and I am sure that Clinton was smart enough to let Al Gore have a say when the issue was technology.
Also, thanks for reminding us that Bill Clinton created an economy strong to face a small recession instead of collapsing all around us.
Would have been interesting to have the same benchmarks for Xubuntu, since that is the distribution that is targeted for computers where performens increase/decrease is very noticable.
"Nineteeneightyfour" is a general commentary from Orwell on totalitarian states, having witness both Stalin and Hitler in the time before his death. (Orwell died in 1949 after finishing the book in 1948). It is Orwell's insight into how a "perfect" totalitarian state should be run. If you want Orwell's thought about Stalin's Soviet, you should read "Animal Farm", which discusses how communism went from "all animals are equal" too "some are more equal than others".
When it comes to left and right, your examples are less than interesting.
* Ministry of Truth: Faux news?
* NewSpeak: Pro-life?
* DoubleThink: "Affirmative action" is OK for Bush, McCain and other from influential parents?
* ThoughtCrime: Either you are with us or you are against us. Don't dare to think otherwise.
* Family and sexual relationships: The daughter of a governor who wants to bann "explicit" sex-ed gets pregnant.
* Mild anti-semitism: To think that critizing Israels actions is the same as condemming jews.
Anyway, Orwell wrote a very important book about how a government can control its citizens. For people in the US you should read it and compare with what Bush/Cheney has done the last 8 years to "protect you against terrorists". When Obama is president, compare the book to what Obama does with the powers he inherents from Bush.
At the risk of being modded down to oblivion, I am still curious to how this effects popular theories like global warming.
Global warming is not popular, it is down right scary. If a group of scientists disprove that our use of hydrocarbons have a significant effect on global warming, these scientists will be extremely popular and probably share a Nobel Prize.
Crappy papers don't get much citations or attention in general. Also, a scientific article does not need to be crap even though it is later shown not to be correct. Even the greatest scientists have made wrong theories and connections.
Wow, headline grabbing, potential break-through scientific theories get a lot of scrutiny and citations from fellow scientists, and many of the theories fail the test of peer review. Daring theories are important for the further advances of science, but by definition most of them will fail.
The most interesting paragraph from the Krugman article is this one:
The Nobel Peace Prize by necessity will have to have a political tone. It is hard to envision peace anywhere without some sort of political settlement and agreement. Therefore, with a peace prize, you will have to give the award to politicians who have done more to create peace, or find "neutral" parties who try to reduce the damage of war/conflicts (Red Cross has got the prize four times in different settings).
It can seem strange today, but two such controversial politicians in its day were Gandhi and King jr. Gandhi never got the prize because of the oposition by GB (often considered the greatest mistake by the Nobel committee, greater than giving the price to Kissinger). MLK jr was at the time considered an extremely risky Nobel laureate since the civil rights issue was so explosive in the US at the time.
Yasir Arafat together with the Israeli got the prize since he sat down and actually tried to find political agreements to the never ending Palistinian problem. The prize was of course controversial, since Arafat was a terrorist/freedom fighter before he turned himself into a politician (the Israeli counter-parts where generals turned politicians). This prize was also controversial, since it was given before peace was actually reached (in this case in the Oslo process), and of course Arafat never achieved a final agreement. It is an example of the prize being used to encourage negotiations and to try to make the two parties negotiation a peaceful agreement stronger than the war-mongers, which some argue should be outside of the scope of the peace prize (i.e., no prize before final peace).
The peace price to Al Gore is an other example of the Nobel Peace Prize trying to expand on its scope (which is of course always controversial). Here the prize is given for pre-emptive work, trying to stop (in this case Global Warming) a cause for further war and troubles. The controversy here I guess is not because people in general have a hard time understanding that major change in the climate can cause war for resources, but because some people still think we should wait 50 years to see if human beings have any effect on the climate.
The Nobel Economy Price might be seen as political since economical philosophy is linked to other political views, but it is hard to argue that Friedman is not a brilliant economist even though he is also a liberal.
Yes, lets go back to the beginning. Even a simple warehouse guy like yourself understood what was ment by the sweeping generalization in the bar analogy. The generalization is the more surplus, the more the most rich should get back. Or in other words, the more you own, the more you should get from the government. Not considering that the rich already get most of the drinks and have the most benefit from police protection and other investments made by the government.
Since you are so proud to made a few bucks on a website, answer this, why should your kids get tax cuts just like Bush secured for people like himself (and who you most probably voted for), even if your kids chose not to work but just live of what you leave them? Why not instead have tax cuts for entrepreneurs who work in a warehouse but is ready to create new wealth and new business?
No, the anti-capitalist claim is that the rich who inherit all their wealth should get tax cuts while the entrepreneuric middle class should carry the cost. Like in the bar example, where the 9 in the middle class should pay more of the bill, even though the one filthy rich get all the drinks, and even though one of the nine is an entrepreneur who can create new bars. The funny thing is that people like you support that the rich who are getting richer, but in general like bush hardly show up for work, are getting away with it with your twisted understanding of capitalism.
No one is talking about taking the wealth away from a rich entrepreneur, but I am sure rich entrepreneurs are more than willing to pay their patriotic tax share to the society that made it possible for them to succeed. The more important point is that the entrepreneurs almost without exception comes from the middle class. So it is important that the tax relief help the middle class to make it possible for the hard working intelligent people to succeed.
To talk about it using politics as an example, you have a hard working intelligent president like Clinton who succeeded even though he came from the middle class. Then you have W bush who "succeeded" from his fathers connection, after being a failure in everything he has done with his inheritance. Clinton cut taxes not for himself, but for the middle class, and the economy boomed. Bush cut taxes for filthy rich like himself who got their wealth from inheritance, and the economy tanked. Any thing to learn from that?
This is plain stupid. We all believe in property rights etc. But if this analogy should have any reality, the 1 wealthy is wealthy because of the work done by the 9 others. And the lucky one gets all the drinks in the bar, while the 9 others share a half empty Budweiser left behind. And if the one wealthy decided to leave the bar, he will have to try to find a bar where there are 9 others that are willing to do all the work, while the one wealthy is drinking everything.
Someone should be fired for giving this David a PhD.
You are just a scared little boy, aren't you.
Well, I guess we now have established that you are neither smart or funny. The proof that banning knives makes sense, is that if Japan lift their ban more people are killed by knives. That one murder happens even when there is a ban, proofs nothing. Now, go out an buy one since you have such a small personality.
Be sure to ban both, and learn to cut steak with a spoon.
I guess you think you are funny and smart, but if you look at the history of the knives, the French king back then made it mandetory for table knives to not be sharp since so many killings happened at the dinner table. One link I found on a fast search: http://www.hospitalityguild.com/History/history_of_the_knife.htm. You see, if you have a deadly weapon easily available people die, strange eh?
Cutting troop funding and FISA are 2 completely different things.
Not for desperate republicans that want you to believe that Obama is dangerous and un-American.
We stopped being angry about that when Obama voted for it.
When you see stories like these: http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/08/the-cindy-mac-attack/, you understand why Obama had no reason to vote against a bill that had a majority anyway in the senate and that only would be taken out of context and used to attack Obama as being "different" than white McCain.
Oh, if you wonder, Obama never voted for cutting the funding to the troops.
Funny how "changing politics as usual" involves attacking a woman's family and accusing her husband of incest.
Are you seriously claiming that SNL and the Obama campaign are one and the same?! SNL, which with great success made fun of Obama in the primaries...
Maybe a side issue, but the SNL skit about incest was ment to make fun of the press, not the first dude.
Someone violated her privacy, broke the law, and distracted from other issues during the presidential election.
Palin wants to continue the policies of the current White House administration where everyones privacy can be violated by the White House without any consequences even though it breakes federal law. And by violating the air-heads yahoo account, it was shown that Palin has -- just like the current republicans in the White House -- used a non-governmental email account to hide how she uses the powers given her by her office. I feel hard to feel sorry for her and also, the finding is very telling about what kind of president she will be when McCain gets cancer and dies.
Why not just vote out the republicans?
The republican party is not conservative, neo-conservative maybe.
Actually, the republicans have been in charge for years doing less than nothing to get the US of their oil addiction, and now they want to take away tax credits for renewable energies, while they have given several huge tax breaks for oil companies over the yers, companies who making more money than any other corporations in the world history. And when the shit hits the fan, the repubs blame liberals for not letting them drill off-shore in 2015. Talk about leadership.
Invading and destabilising a major oil producing nation and neighbour to all the other big oil nations -- a nation that did not have anything to do with 911 -- is the kind of leadership that give you $4 gas prices. Republicans trying to blame Gore for how they voted are pathetic.
I see that Trent05 is another victim of Republican propaganda...