I would like to point out that, for all of it's faults, Economics at least sets an objective framework for creating theories on how markets work. For instance, your post does not utilize any Economic principles I can think of and basically explains how devasting it would be to ALL national economies if jobs (capital) were to leave the U.S. I will only say that the integrity of such claims would be quite dubious if you lived anywhere outside of a 3rd world country. But sadly, I can only understand the logic of your post if you are American.
If you do not heed the wisdoms of Economics, you should at least be aware that historical events have proved your theory wrong, many times over.
However, suppose we assume you are right and implement a complete ban on companies outsourcing? What kind of paradise is it you imagine? I personally imagine a hell of super-generized foreign corporations, utilzing a massive human resource of artifiicially cheap professionals, totally undercutting and out performing our domestic suppliers.
You can either flow with the market and adapt to change, or you can try to control the market and bear the full force of its spite.
But this is capital availabe to eveyone that frequents slashdot, and Americans have great access to infrastructure to develop "specialized knowledge" capital, more so than people in countries like India.
I just don't understand why so many people get angry with having to compete with the rest of the world, even when they clearly have an advantage . . .
Even I am not trying to avoid being replaced. . .
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 1
But I am hoping Japanese and being a CPA will buy me some time.
Yes, I may eventually have to work for 20k, but if enough time has passed, other prices will have deflated as well, and my quality life will be minimally effected (remember, not just wages are cheap in India . ..).
If my current skill set doesn't cut it, I can simply enhance utilizing infrastructure far superior than what they have in India.
Competition forces everyone to be better at what they do. You can either complain along the way or accept it as part of life's challenges. Regardless of which way you take it, it is inevitable.
"Ha, as soon as 3rd world country X's wages begin to rise, and all the companies bail out, who is going to be left to pay these higher wages?"
No, markets move gradually towards equilibrium and then stabilize. Besides, why would a market only go to ONE country to get cheap labor. Logic would dictate that they are going to ALL poor countries at the same time and the poorest wages of the entire world will be raised simultaneously. Where do they flee to after those wages are raised?
"How many years before the workers will be willing to take a paycut under their original wages just to have a job again?"
0, already happening. Part of the equalization process will mean the price of U.S. wages will decrease.
"This cycle will continue throughout the third world as companies ravage each country one by one. Once they're done with their first circuit around the world, the country they started with would be just about ready to start over again."
You make companies sound like the BORG. Remember, markets are guided by an "invisible hand" towards equilibrium. Companies will stop leaving the U.S. as soon as the relative price abroad is greater or equal to the domestic price of wages. At that point there will be equilibrium.
Okay,/., economists are Nerds too, you know. Why are there so few of us hitting slashdot? Why am I the only one posting comments straight from Adam Smith here?
I invent all the time with minimal capital
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 1
It is called LAMP (I must stress P for Perl, since that is primarily what I have been using recently). I also use gretl (for econometric analysis), which is also under the GPL.
My relatively luxurious American life has allowed me to accumulate skills in finance, programming, and Japanese. This "skill set" allows me to create "unique" inventions within a small niche. But since I don't need any capital to operate (other than a computer and Internet connection), that niche is good enough for me.
"These new global corporations may cut a large swath of productivity, but they move from third world country to third world country leaving devastation and ruin in their wake."
Actually, I think they will leave when wages are no longer relatively low, which is really good news for the locals. And this process will continue until all world wages are equalized, assuming free trade continues (and if it doesn't, now THAT would be devastating).
If you have a problem with this, don't complain to me.
Complain to contemporary Economic theory on International Markets. They take criticism more constructively than I do.
I think another word for that is "capitalism." We are simply achieving it at a much more efficient level, thanks to technology. We can still invent new technology, you know.
Maybe the problem is not that "higher level jobs" are being displaced but that these jobs are no longer as important, thanks to technology. Penmanship used to be a CAREER until technology displaced it. Maybe it is not good enough to JUST be a programmer anymore. I program in PERL all the time (and admin my own LAMP), and I am a freak'n Financial Analyst (majored in Economics). But I enhance my productivity by leveraging PERL to "Invent" new tools for financial analysis.
Instead of picking one career, maybe you would be safer picking two. That way it might be easier for you to invent ("you" not necessarily referring to the parent).
Natural Progression of things, get used to it.
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 1
Countries with cheap and easily available oil export oil. Countries with cheap and easily available labor will export their labor (which is what we call "outsourcing"). Eventually, if open standards, technology (but I repeat myself . ..), and democracy continue to spread throughout the world, all prices will converge to a single optimum point, and there will be little need for outsourcing but by then, a lot will have changed. Being poor but well educated can actually be a national resource. So the not so smart richest country better get ready for some change (and before you flame me out of national pride, understand that I am an American).
Or, what? You thought an OS monopoly (OS, being everything your computer could POSSIBLY do) and a large nuclear stockpile of weapons was your key to a comfortable life? In case you haven't noticed, these other countries have been better investing their hard earned money, and we are just starting to feel the results.
In capitalist economies, only price is king. Kneel before your king.
"Why no keep working on the existing tuned kernels of AIX, IRIX, Tru64, etc?"
Well, why don't IBM and SGI just stick with their old 'nixes then? If you fork Linux, you go into a full loop and have the same type of problems you had with old 'nixes. The beauty of Linux is not what it has become, but where it will always be going. Fork it, and you lose the most important "feature." I certainly think that each company will be using "niched" versions eventually (think, Debian vs. RH), but I really can't see why they would find it economical to fork from the main branch and return to the dark ages.
Linux provides an open standard that allows anyone (individual or corporation) to contribute to a standard without the fear that they will not be able to benefit from those contributions or, worse, have those contributions be used against them.
Maintaining an OS is becoming way too expensive, unless you have a near perfect monopoly and can control market prices. Smart companies will start to treat the OS as a "standard" (like HTML) and forget trying to control it. Instead, they will focus on building powerful applications to run on this "standard" OS, without fear that the owner will eventually decide to compete with those applications, leveraging their control of the standard, since there is no one owner in existence to control the OS.
It is my opinion that IBM is one of the smartest companies is existence these days. . .
It is not that the Linux you know now is going to replace AIX. The point is that IBM will invest to bring Linux up to the level of AIX over the years, and when Linux is as good as AIX at what AIX is good at, you will get a product like AIX but with the "coolness" of Linux.
IBM is merely reinforcing their already rock solid commitment.
"It just doesn't make since to use a screwdriver to pound in a nail."
I pound in nails just to blow off some time and hammers cost a freaking $100, easily break, and might be sending my personal information to God knows where. Then a screwdriver will do just fine for all tasks. Of course, this would make more sense if we were talking about two different types of hammers . ..
But, anyway, I never really gamed much UNTIL I switched to Linux. Bzflag and netrek were great addictive games. There is xmame and hundreds of "waste some time" games. True gamers might scoff at such casual gaming, but I really would have trouble caring.
The above is just MY opinion, not a proposed religion . . .
Hmm, systems improve if they are open to scrutiny?
on
[H|Cr]acker Insurance
·
· Score: 1
Problem is, the clients that need software insurance the most run sofware that forbids you to checkout code, and the software that lets you checkout the code doesn't need insurance.
This fact may prevent the kind of scenario your post describes to occur in the computer industry.
If it is not cost effective for MS, which faces the highest damages from such incidents (think PR), to patch its own software, how can they argue it is cost effective for ANYONE to insure that everything gets patched?
It seems to me if one were to include the costs of patching, insuring everything gets patched, and the expected losses (I assume probality is inherently high in then non-Unix world) from the inevitable missed patch (or, nonexistent patch/late patch), MS TCO would go through the roof. Then again, maybe the entire concept of TCO doesn't matter when the most significant costs can be hidden from ignorant managers who act as the software purchasing agents of the company.
"All of that said, there are some people at the New HP who may just now be finding out who it is they lost in the merger. I'll be accepting my invitation to their reception at LinuxWorld, hopefully they will get a chance to get to know me better."
I hope they do too. I always thought HP and Bruce Perens together were a killer combination. Maybe they can hire you back as a consultant at 3 times the price?;)
Anyway, thanks for the response. I will now procede to frame this thread on my wall . . .
Being able to decide where the distro goes is actually a really significant service. Also, being able to request rpms is really great too
(I requesteed a starcon 2 rpm, and it only took a week! starcon 2! starcon 2!)
But I do agree that they should be more careful if they are going to sell plastic wrap. In fact, I think they should do the opposite: Stop selling package wrapped distros and focus on creating services and specific products like that firewall product they created. I always thought Open Source was about selling services, not software. They are trying to do both, and it is kind of cancelling out each other.
Anyway, I hope ch. 11 (or the French equavalent) will force them to make these hard decisions and focus on one strategy. I personally hope they return to those humble times when they were profitable and put out an awsome single cd distro.
I'll be making my opinion known over at the Mandrakeclub site if anyone needs me . ..
Don't blame me, my English wasn't this bad before I started coming to slashdot.
Thank you for posting this. And to add to your point, Mandrake has always been open. People could have started up Openmandrake anytime in the past. Why didn't they? Because there was some kind of value added in paying developers to code that did not exist in the free developer environment (mainly, easy hardware detection and easy to use interfaces). I mean, Debian is proof of what a distro becomes when nobody is paying the developers (I mean this is a positive way. Debian is pure technology, but this is not attractive to some users).
I think Mandrakeclub addresses this issue, and we will soon see a 9.1 version coming from a profitable, but very humble Mandrakesoft this spring. They will still be paying off debts for the next year or so, but they will, hopefully, have returned to a simpler time when life was just about getting an easy distro available to the public.
That is why I am a Silver member for the next 584 days and will probably renew way before that period is up. Call me stupid, but what do I have to loose? I am still paying MUCH less than I would have for MS, and I am helping others have an excellent distro for free. And for someone who will never get his name written down in history books, this will be as close as I can ever get to having an effect on the world.
I remember reading this article about chaos and that you could measure the degree of chaos by measuring how unpredictable an output from a system was. This is what your post brings to mind . ..
I just wanted to clear a few things up before I turn thing over for you to continue your rant, since it appears to be good therapy.
First, I think "lie" is a bit strong. It was like when the poster said I was lying when I said Bush was against "affirmative action." Dude, I am just making a freaking observation on the weekend that he is taking a lot of risks (I counted 4). Maybe I am not lying, but lazy and don't care if it was 57% instead of 50% that I heard on NPR. Or that some people don't consider "affirmative action" to have ANYTHING to do with race quotas (that is what it means in Austin, Texas, where I was born and raised and graduated from . . . I was there at UT when the 4 white students filed their complaints about the law school).
I am sorry that you consider this outright lying and falsifying of facts. It was a/. post, not my thesis for political science.My agenda was to have some form of communication, but it appears to have become a p!ss-fest with you, due to your very high expectations of/. posts.
Maybe I am not liberal or conservative, but some young snot nose kid, just out of school trying to get a grasp of what politics is about, and you, sir, have just done the equavalent of RTFM. Fine, whatever your views are, they were eclipsed today by a masquerading rant of what seems to be a cranky old white man that should stay in bed on the weekends instead of flaming as, pttff, an AC. Your views were sadly misrepresented today, sir, and you would do them better justice by focusing on the logic behind the arguments instead pulling down your trousers and . ..
I will now attempt to set a good example by properly closing my rant tag in hopes that you will learn to do the same, in between your flames.
Okey, dokey . . . the stage is yours. Make your country proud . . .
Yeah, but people are doomed to have stereotypes. For instance, no matter how hard I try to be like a black person, I will never have the right to use the "N-word." Black people get to use it all the time, but our society is scarred in such a way that white people will always be forbidden that right, regardless of their "good intentions". There are limitations to our species.
Bush's actions have an affect on the unspoken assumptions that roam the minds of Americans. Of course race quotas are a stupid attempt to create a time-machine to undo past wrongs. But what if, just like the "n-word," only a black politician has the political leverage to say so and be listened, and as long as Bush, being white, is "speaking" the truth, the only black politician that can actual get people to "act" on the truth, is being drowned out.
My point is not that Bush is wrong but that he is too ambitious. If I knew him in person, just as a person, he probably would be a great and inspirational person to know. However, it is for this reason that I don't think he makes a good president. It seems that the best presidents are inviduals too weak to have their own agendas, at least in the important areas, and, therefore, are forced to find a compromise for the views of the public.
As far as being shocked about unconstitutional programs . . . I am really too numb to be shocked. I would more shocked by the existence of a constitutional program (yeah, I know a lot DO exist, but noone ever goes "hey, you know suchasuch program? It is REALLY constitutional")
"No, that is why a president has advisiors. Mr. Bush seems to be doing quite well addressing all of these points at once right now. Otherwise you would have no reason to be concerned, since nothing could happen, right?"
I was trying to refer to the amount of time necessary to convince the public that these are the right choices to make. The rest of the world is not under the same pressures as he is (getting ready to run for his next term). His approval rating has gone from 90% to 50%. I know this isn't too much for Bush to fit on his plate (presidents always seem so relaxed . . . they probably should work more). I am sure Bush could add 20 more things he wants done and have no problem doing the necessary paperwork and making the necessary speeches. However, the American public is becoming more and more alienated.
However, if this is self-defeating, it does give me something to worry about. This creates further confusion down the road when a politician really wants to focus on one important issue, like affirmative action, and is willing to work with all related parties to find a compromise. If this politician happens to be white or Republican, people will associate this politician with Bush and his failures, which will hurt a genuine effort to resolve the issue.
"Also, don't use "fsck" in conversation, even on Slashdot."
Is it the word that is being implied that you find offensive or the fact that I am using a command that invokes a file system utility to imply that word? I am guessing "both." Fair enough, anything to make my posts easier to digest.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to point out that, for all of it's faults, Economics at least sets an objective framework for creating theories on how markets work. For instance, your post does not utilize any Economic principles I can think of and basically explains how devasting it would be to ALL national economies if jobs (capital) were to leave the U.S. I will only say that the integrity of such claims would be quite dubious if you lived anywhere outside of a 3rd world country. But sadly, I can only understand the logic of your post if you are American.
If you do not heed the wisdoms of Economics, you should at least be aware that historical events have proved your theory wrong, many times over.
However, suppose we assume you are right and implement a complete ban on companies outsourcing? What kind of paradise is it you imagine? I personally imagine a hell of super-generized foreign corporations, utilzing a massive human resource of artifiicially cheap professionals, totally undercutting and out performing our domestic suppliers.
You can either flow with the market and adapt to change, or you can try to control the market and bear the full force of its spite.
But this is capital availabe to eveyone that frequents slashdot, and Americans have great access to infrastructure to develop "specialized knowledge" capital, more so than people in countries like India.
I just don't understand why so many people get angry with having to compete with the rest of the world, even when they clearly have an advantage . . .
But I am hoping Japanese and being a CPA will buy me some time.
.).
Yes, I may eventually have to work for 20k, but if enough time has passed, other prices will have deflated as well, and my quality life will be minimally effected (remember, not just wages are cheap in India . .
If my current skill set doesn't cut it, I can simply enhance utilizing infrastructure far superior than what they have in India.
Competition forces everyone to be better at what they do. You can either complain along the way or accept it as part of life's challenges. Regardless of which way you take it, it is inevitable.
"Wages equalize?"
/., economists are Nerds too, you know. Why are there so few of us hitting slashdot? Why am I the only one posting comments straight from Adam Smith here?
Yes, that is how markets work.
"Ha, as soon as 3rd world country X's wages begin to rise, and all the companies bail out, who is going to be left to pay these higher wages?"
No, markets move gradually towards equilibrium and then stabilize. Besides, why would a market only go to ONE country to get cheap labor. Logic would dictate that they are going to ALL poor countries at the same time and the poorest wages of the entire world will be raised simultaneously. Where do they flee to after those wages are raised?
"How many years before the workers will be willing to take a paycut under their original wages just to have a job again?"
0, already happening. Part of the equalization process will mean the price of U.S. wages will decrease.
"This cycle will continue throughout the third world as companies ravage each country one by one. Once they're done with their first circuit around the world, the country they started with would be just about ready to start over again."
You make companies sound like the BORG. Remember, markets are guided by an "invisible hand" towards equilibrium. Companies will stop leaving the U.S. as soon as the relative price abroad is greater or equal to the domestic price of wages. At that point there will be equilibrium.
Okay,
It is called LAMP (I must stress P for Perl, since that is primarily what I have been using recently). I also use gretl (for econometric analysis), which is also under the GPL.
My relatively luxurious American life has allowed me to accumulate skills in finance, programming, and Japanese. This "skill set" allows me to create "unique" inventions within a small niche. But since I don't need any capital to operate (other than a computer and Internet connection), that niche is good enough for me.
Just my experience . . .
"These new global corporations may cut a large swath of productivity, but they move from third world country to third world country leaving devastation and ruin in their wake."
Actually, I think they will leave when wages are no longer relatively low, which is really good news for the locals. And this process will continue until all world wages are equalized, assuming free trade continues (and if it doesn't, now THAT would be devastating).
If you have a problem with this, don't complain to me.
Complain to contemporary Economic theory on International Markets. They take criticism more constructively than I do.
I think another word for that is "capitalism." We are simply achieving it at a much more efficient level, thanks to technology. We can still invent new technology, you know.
Maybe the problem is not that "higher level jobs" are being displaced but that these jobs are no longer as important, thanks to technology. Penmanship used to be a CAREER until technology displaced it. Maybe it is not good enough to JUST be a programmer anymore. I program in PERL all the time (and admin my own LAMP), and I am a freak'n Financial Analyst (majored in Economics).
But I enhance my productivity by leveraging PERL to "Invent" new tools for financial analysis.
Instead of picking one career, maybe you would be safer picking two. That way it might be easier for you to invent ("you" not necessarily referring to the parent).
Countries with cheap and easily available oil export oil. Countries with cheap and easily available labor will export their labor (which is what we call "outsourcing"). Eventually, if open standards, technology (but I repeat myself . . .), and democracy continue to spread throughout the world, all prices will converge to a single optimum point, and there will be little need for outsourcing but by then, a lot will have changed. Being poor but well educated can actually be a national resource. So the not so smart richest country better get ready for some change (and before you flame me out of national pride, understand that I am an American).
Or, what? You thought an OS monopoly (OS, being everything your computer could POSSIBLY do) and a large nuclear stockpile of weapons was your key to a comfortable life? In case you haven't noticed, these other countries have been better investing their hard earned money, and we are just starting to feel the results.
In capitalist economies, only price is king. Kneel before your king.
"Why no keep working on the existing tuned kernels of AIX, IRIX, Tru64, etc?"
Well, why don't IBM and SGI just stick with their old 'nixes then? If you fork Linux, you go into a full loop and have the same type of problems you had with old 'nixes. The beauty of Linux is not what it has become, but where it will always be going. Fork it, and you lose the most important "feature." I certainly think that each company will be using "niched" versions eventually (think, Debian vs. RH), but I really can't see why they would find it economical to fork from the main branch and return to the dark ages.
Linux provides an open standard that allows anyone (individual or corporation) to contribute to a standard without the fear that they will not be able to benefit from those contributions or, worse, have those contributions be used against them.
Maintaining an OS is becoming way too expensive, unless you have a near perfect monopoly and can control market prices. Smart companies will start to treat the OS as a "standard" (like HTML) and forget trying to control it. Instead, they will focus on building powerful applications to run on this "standard" OS, without fear that the owner will eventually decide to compete with those applications, leveraging their control of the standard, since there is no one owner in existence to control the OS.
It is my opinion that IBM is one of the smartest companies is existence these days. . .
It is not that the Linux you know now is going to replace AIX. The point is that IBM will invest to bring Linux up to the level of AIX over the years, and when Linux is as good as AIX at what AIX is good at, you will get a product like AIX but with the "coolness" of Linux.
IBM is merely reinforcing their already rock solid commitment.
"It just doesn't make since to use a screwdriver to pound in a nail."
.
I pound in nails just to blow off some time and hammers cost a freaking $100, easily break, and might be sending my personal information to God knows where. Then a screwdriver will do just fine for all tasks. Of course, this would make more sense if we were talking about two different types of hammers . .
But, anyway, I never really gamed much UNTIL I switched to Linux. Bzflag and netrek were great addictive games. There is xmame and hundreds of "waste some time" games. True gamers might scoff at such casual gaming, but I really would have trouble caring.
The above is just MY opinion, not a proposed religion . . .
Problem is, the clients that need software insurance the most run sofware that forbids you to checkout code, and the software that lets you checkout the code doesn't need insurance.
This fact may prevent the kind of scenario your post describes to occur in the computer industry.
I am sure that does much more damage than some little ol' virus.
If it is not cost effective for MS, which faces the highest damages from such incidents (think PR), to patch its own software, how can they argue it is cost effective for ANYONE to insure that everything gets patched?
It seems to me if one were to include the costs of patching, insuring everything gets patched, and the expected losses (I assume probality is inherently high in then non-Unix world) from the inevitable missed patch (or, nonexistent patch/late patch), MS TCO would go through the roof. Then again, maybe the entire concept of TCO doesn't matter when the most significant costs can be hidden from ignorant managers who act as the software purchasing agents of the company.
we can create a nation wide system to warn birds they are about to fly into a transparent yet unforgivingly solid object.
"# LNUX is worth a few pennies and in danger of being de-listed off the NASDAQ stock exchange"
."
/. is going down the toilet.
this should be funny, right? "silly, Linux isn't a company, you must be jesting?" should be going through the moderators head not, "interesting . .
ah, forget it,
"All of that said, there are some people at the New HP who may just now be finding out who it is they lost in the merger. I'll be accepting my invitation to their reception at LinuxWorld, hopefully they will get a chance to get to know me better."
;)
I hope they do too. I always thought HP and Bruce Perens together were a killer combination. Maybe they can hire you back as a consultant at 3 times the price?
Anyway, thanks for the response. I will now procede to frame this thread on my wall . . .
Hey, Bruce. How does it feel to have your old company pull out of the conference because you are not speaking? Looks like they miss you a lot :)
Anyway, Lindows' loss . . .
You get to help choose what actually goes into the distro, what more could a geek want?
Being able to decide where the distro goes is actually a really significant service. Also, being able to request rpms is really great too
.
(I requesteed a starcon 2 rpm, and it only took a week! starcon 2! starcon 2!)
But I do agree that they should be more careful if they are going to sell plastic wrap. In fact, I think they should do the opposite: Stop selling package wrapped distros and focus on creating services and specific products like that firewall product they created. I always thought Open Source was about selling services, not software. They are trying to do both, and it is kind of cancelling out each other.
Anyway, I hope ch. 11 (or the French equavalent) will force them to make these hard decisions and focus on one strategy. I personally hope they return to those humble times when they were profitable and put out an awsome single cd distro.
I'll be making my opinion known over at the Mandrakeclub site if anyone needs me . .
Don't blame me, my English wasn't this bad before I started coming to slashdot.
Thank you for posting this. And to add to your point, Mandrake has always been open. People could have started up Openmandrake anytime in the past. Why didn't they? Because there was some kind of value added in paying developers to code that did not exist in the free developer environment (mainly, easy hardware detection and easy to use interfaces). I mean, Debian is proof of what a distro becomes when nobody is paying the developers (I mean this is a positive way. Debian is pure technology, but this is not attractive to some users).
I think Mandrakeclub addresses this issue, and we will soon see a 9.1 version coming from a profitable, but very humble Mandrakesoft this spring. They will still be paying off debts for the next year or so, but they will, hopefully, have returned to a simpler time when life was just about getting an easy distro available to the public.
That is why I am a Silver member for the next 584 days and will probably renew way before that period is up. Call me stupid, but what do I have to loose? I am still paying MUCH less than I would have for MS, and I am helping others have an excellent distro for free. And for someone who will never get his name written down in history books, this will be as close as I can ever get to having an effect on the world.
Anyway,thanks again for the great post.
Oh, wait . . . there is my rage . . .
.
/. post, not my thesis for political science.My agenda was to have some form of communication, but it appears to have become a p!ss-fest with you, due to your very high expectations of /. posts.
.
I remember reading this article about chaos and that you could measure the degree of chaos by measuring how unpredictable an output from a system was. This is what your post brings to mind . .
I just wanted to clear a few things up before I turn thing over for you to continue your rant, since it appears to be good therapy.
First, I think "lie" is a bit strong. It was like when the poster said I was lying when I said Bush was against "affirmative action." Dude, I am just making a freaking observation on the weekend that he is taking a lot of risks (I counted 4). Maybe I am not lying, but lazy and don't care if it was 57% instead of 50% that I heard on NPR. Or that some people don't consider "affirmative action" to have ANYTHING to do with race quotas (that is what it means in Austin, Texas, where I was born and raised and graduated from . . . I was there at UT when the 4 white students filed their complaints about the law school).
I am sorry that you consider this outright lying and falsifying of facts. It was a
Maybe I am not liberal or conservative, but some young snot nose kid, just out of school trying to get a grasp of what politics is about, and you, sir, have just done the equavalent of RTFM. Fine, whatever your views are, they were eclipsed today by a masquerading rant of what seems to be a cranky old white man that should stay in bed on the weekends instead of flaming as, pttff, an AC. Your views were sadly misrepresented today, sir, and you would do them better justice by focusing on the logic behind the arguments instead pulling down your trousers and . .
I will now attempt to set a good example by properly closing my rant tag in hopes that you will learn to do the same, in between your flames.
Okey, dokey . . . the stage is yours. Make your country proud . . .
Wait a minute . . . that's bad for me.
Yeah, but people are doomed to have stereotypes. For instance, no matter how hard I try to be like a black person, I will never have the right to use the "N-word." Black people get to use it all the time, but our society is scarred in such a way that white people will always be forbidden that right, regardless of their "good intentions". There are limitations to our species.
Bush's actions have an affect on the unspoken assumptions that roam the minds of Americans. Of course race quotas are a stupid attempt to create a time-machine to undo past wrongs. But what if, just like the "n-word," only a black politician has the political leverage to say so and be listened, and as long as Bush, being white, is "speaking" the truth, the only black politician that can actual get people to "act" on the truth, is being drowned out.
My point is not that Bush is wrong but that he is too ambitious. If I knew him in person, just as a person, he probably would be a great and inspirational person to know. However, it is for this reason that I don't think he makes a good president. It seems that the best presidents are inviduals too weak to have their own agendas, at least in the important areas, and, therefore, are forced to find a compromise for the views of the public.
As far as being shocked about unconstitutional programs . . . I am really too numb to be shocked. I would more shocked by the existence of a constitutional program (yeah, I know a lot DO exist, but noone ever goes "hey, you know suchasuch program? It is REALLY constitutional")
"No, that is why a president has advisiors. Mr. Bush seems to be doing quite well addressing all of these points at once right now. Otherwise you would have no reason to be concerned, since nothing could happen, right?"
I was trying to refer to the amount of time necessary to convince the public that these are the right choices to make. The rest of the world is not under the same pressures as he is (getting ready to run for his next term). His approval rating has gone from 90% to 50%. I know this isn't too much for Bush to fit on his plate (presidents always seem so relaxed . . . they probably should work more). I am sure Bush could add 20 more things he wants done and have no problem doing the necessary paperwork and making the necessary speeches. However, the American public is becoming more and more alienated.
However, if this is self-defeating, it does give me something to worry about. This creates further confusion down the road when a politician really wants to focus on one important issue, like affirmative action, and is willing to work with all related parties to find a compromise. If this politician happens to be white or Republican, people will associate this politician with Bush and his failures, which will hurt a genuine effort to resolve the issue.
"Also, don't use "fsck" in conversation, even on Slashdot."
Is it the word that is being implied that you find offensive or the fact that I am using a command that invokes a file system utility to imply that word? I am guessing "both." Fair enough, anything to make my posts easier to digest.
Cheers.