eh, they somehow manage to force themselves to sell me a product anyway, so don't cry too many black black tears for the local retailer - I've been friends with a couple and don't you worry, they're still making money just fine.
More importantly, they're putting real market pressure on WalFart and Office Despot to keep their prices in the general neighborhood of reality. Eliminate the small local retailers and just watch how many big boxes double their prices.
"Whoa... you must be like on every terrorist watchlist...."
Well, I'm a liberal Unitarian, so yeah, I'm sure I am...
"I bought an iMac (the original one, so this was a while ago) with cash (about $1400 in $500 and $100 bills iirc). The cashier had to call the manager to ask what to do!"
When I worked at a large car dealership they put me through the same orientation as the salesmen (I was a detailer) when we all got hired. Turns out if somebody walks in with over ten grand in cash, you're supposed to call the cops, because having that much cash on you is literally against the law. Whatever happened to currency being legal tender for all debts, public and private? I must have missed the footnote, "debt not to exceed ten thousand dollars".
A lot of places these days don't have cash registers because it makes their insurance go up. A few apartments ago I tried to pay my rent in cash and they straight up refused to accept it.
A word to the wise... If you want to appear intelligent in front of other intelligent people, it's usually a good idea to stay away from statements that start out with "you must be X because of Y".
Some examples: "you're a lesbian? you must hate all men" or "you're a republican? you must want to rape the environment" or "you're a liberal? you must want to abolish all religion".
The fact that you make the statement shows that your mind is already made up. There's a word for that where I come from, and that word is prejudice.
Wow, what a great troll. You got me, anyway. You've apparently spent the last 20 years of your life not shopping for music, or you would have heard of:
A) remixes (this is when new compositional features are adding to a previously existing composition, which is then re-released and sold as a separate and discrete product) B) remasters (this is when new sonic features are added to a previously existing recorded composition, which is then re-released and sold as a separate and discrete product) C) expanded re-releases (in addition to the above, this includes albums re-released with bonus tracks, videos, posters, etc. - franz ferdinand and the white stripes being two recent examples)
Well, I'll probably be in the minority here, but since I don't have a bank account or a credit card, there's a couple local shops I go to for almost everything, component-wise (though I think I did get my last CD burner from WalFart). It's instant retail gratification, they carry most of what I need for a marginal markup, and they can be bargained with in ways WalMart and Office Depot can't. Plus I get to feel all warm and tingly about supporting local merchants.
You seem to be equating WalMart's market hegemony with competition. Competition is among more than one party, competition isn't just one company getting incredibly huge and eating up every other company or market that poses any kind of competition to it. WalMart seems to me to be the very essence of anti-competition.
Call me crazy, but where I come from Capialism (which I do conisder a good thing) requires competition and a marketplace. When you remove any and all real, substantial competition from Capitalism, it becomes Corporatism, which I do definately consider a bad thing. It's not Capitalism if nobody can compete with the behemoths that are already on the scene. And it's not much of a marketplace if one major player dominates everything, because who's going to choose, voluntarily, to pay a higher price? And the ultimate loser is always the consumer, the very person Capitalism is supposed to be good for (by offering choices in the marketplace).
And while I agree that capital is important, let's not forget that all capital comes from WORK. Which is done by PEOPLE. Without workers there would be no companies, no managers, and no capital. People can get by just fine without corporations, corporations can't get by without people (as workers and consumers). Capital is certainly important, and many companies do make life more pleasant, but we've lost all sense of BALANCE between labor and capital. The Capitalist system only works when both labor and capital are valued. And if we don't correct the imbalance, the system will crash.
Hey kids, did it ever occur to any of you, on either side, that maybe the best thing isn't to have ONLY competition, or ONLY cooperation, but maybe some fucking BALANCE?!?! You are ALL trying to argue that the coin should only have one side! There are times and places that competition is important. There are certainly times and places that cooperation is important as well. Every workplace, every friendship, and every band I've ever been in has, at times been competitive. And at other times, they've also been cooperative. This is the way of the world, people. Male and female. Democrat and Republican. Night and day. Heads and tails. Light and shadow. Ford and GM. NEVER will ANY of these completely eradicate the other. Existance is dualistic and cyclical. Cooperation and competition are both equally and immensely important to a person's well-being, and neither could exist without the other, because they define each other by opposition. Both the CCCP and Dickensian England were completely unsustainable for precisely this reason - the one believed solely in cooperation while the other believed solely in competition. And both were eventually compelled to make radical changes in their society. The thing that has always made America great has been our ability to compromise, we lose that at our peril.
So suck it up, quit pretending that there's only one right answer, quit acting like spoiled children who just want their way... and BALANCE!!!!!
Well, I'm willing to accept their not making money they expected to make (because people downloaded stuff they didn't pay for) as a "loss", as long as they're willing to accept their making money they didn't expect to make (because people downloaded stuff and DID buy it) as a "gain". That knife cuts both ways, so they can bring it.
" I should know better than to post anything on slashdot that isn't to the left of Michael Moore."
Oh stop feeling sorry for yourself. Nobody held a gun to your head to make you write this. You actually think you're right.
"(up to and including not bothering to make money)"
This is ludicrous. Nobody anywhere in America is making the voluntary decision to not make money. Nobody. Bill Gates and George Soros are still trying to make more money. I mean, they must not know they are being taxed or else they would just stop working, right?
In point of fact, Einstein, most of us who don't have rich family are working two or more jobs just to pay the bills. I know I am (production support analyst/apartment manager/freelance web designer). My mom, who actually has a degree from a reputable school, is teaching remedial english in a rural Florida public high school (fun!), while simultaneously being director of RE at her church, and caretaker of a developmentally disabled child. And that's with a bachelor's. My dad, a former regional VP for a very old telecom, has his in EE, with years of telecom experience. He teaches at another public high school in north Florida, while working the sound for his church for a pittance. They just sold everything they owned. Their last rent check bounced.
Between the two of them, they hold five jobs.
Currently, how many jobs have you, sir?
"14th highest out of 150"
But isn't our standard of living FIRST out of 150? Isn't the gap between 1 and 14, like... two touchdowns or something? I mean, a 14-year-old human probably already has public hair, and there's states out west where it's legal to have sex with them. 14 points on a test could at least make the difference between an A and a C, or at worst make or break an entire semester. But I belabor, where I had intent only to illustrate... but I tell you what, Bobby, if I could pay the rent for the 14th nicest house on the block, but live in the FIRST nicest... Mmmm hmm. Yup.
And while we're taking a nice, close look at that scale of your'n thar, exactly how close together are those bottom 136? RANK of taxation doesn't matter, it's just another statistical red herring thrown out by people who would rather you not notice just how many times they could buy and sell you and your entire family.
Look at it this way - If I beat somebody in a race by twenty laps, and he in turn is followed closely by the rest of the pack within the span of a second, it doesn't matter that he came in second of 100. He was still almost last in terms of quantity of time. And quantitatively, I still whupped 'em all.
RANK of taxation doesn't matter. It's not quantitative, it's relative, it tells you what everything is next to. RATE of taxation does, because it IS quantitative, it tells you where everything *is*, right now. We pay incredibly low taxes given the benefits. If you want fewer benefits for fewer taxes, quit talking bullshit and move. Start packing that suitcase for Botswana, singing joyfully about how few taxes you'll have to pay.
And don't forget your pistol. And a lot of fresh water. And a lot of batteries. And probably some suntan lotion, like a gallon or so. Have fun, don't forget to write to tell us how great it is not having to pay taxes and hunting for ferrets!
You're dancing around the issue like all the other tax-haters. What do you think pay for your police, your firemen, your schools? You think they come from, like, magic pixie dust? Cuz I guarantee you, pal, that when some of my hoodlum friends break into your house to steal your stereo, you *will* want to call the police. Do you expect them to hand you a bill when they leave, or just swipe your card?
Look, you don't have to deal with reality if you don't want to. You and I both know if you could have an American standard of life for cheaper, you'd move. There's a reason people line up around the globe to get into this country. It's because they're literally dyi
"In fact, the rich pay almost all the taxes anyway. In the US, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 70% of the taxes."
And those same groups get way more out of the experience of living in whatever it is they're paying taxes to, so why shouldn't that added value be compensated for? Americans still pay among the lowest overall taxes in the world, IIRC. To live anywhere else in the world and maintain my standard of American life I'd have to pay through the ass. Canada, Europe, England, Japan... all have higher taxes than the US. Even some 3rd world countries do.
"But even before that they can go back to the tax shelters."
I'm all for abolishing tax shelters.
"John Kerry and his charming wife have been paying a tax rate of about 12%."
I'm not a student of tax statistics, but I've always heard, anecdotally, that the *very* richest people in the country, like John Kerry and Bill Gates, pay next to nothing.
"don't support socialism thinking you're going to get the Kerrys to pay for it."
oh, don't get me wrong. I'll never be the president of the John Kerry fan club. I'm well aware that Kerry is just as corporate as Bush is. At this point the only reason I'm voting for him is that he's at least a multi-lateral corporatist. Who won't go around talking about crusades, let his generals say we're fighting a Christian war on Islam, piss off almost everybody that matters in the world, let the Pakistanis and North Koreans get nukes, and start a war with a country that didn't do anything to us and wasn't capable of doing so even when attacked. And then fuck that up like every opportunity he was handed, every duty he owed his country, every business he ran, every well he dug, every team he owned.
"Here's the bad part, for as much as the Democrats and Republicans can say they are different, they are both so authoritarian and elitist,"
i think the word you're looking for is "corporatist".
"Republicans can say that they are more fiscally responsible, that they try to lower taxes, that they support rights, but where are their examples? Bush increased spending during his term,"
As did King George the First, as did King Ronnie. My favorite republican quote is "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Karl Rove, I think...
"and we all know that Democrats support larger government."
Do we? Bill Clinton did a lot of wrong shit, but he made a campign promise to end welfare as we know it, and damned if he didn't come within a hairs breadth of doing exactly that. And eliminated the federal defecit. How?
By taxing most those whom taxes affect the least.
"The rest of the world can stop bitching and just wait, because our direction is heading right toward Socialism, there is no questioning that."
Wow. I wish I lived in the same America you do. No, my friend, the direction we are heading in is most definately *not* toward socialsm, unfortunely. I saw this cited in somebody's sig file here once, and kick myself daily for not bookmarking it, but the Italian Dictionary from 1936, written by and for the people who pretty much *invented* modern Fascism, defined Fascism as "a government by Corporations". Fascism is where we're headed, and we're uncomfortably close today. And beyond that lies only Corporate Feudalism (you eat, sleep and bathe at the workplace, have little to no rights thanks to a pre-employment EULA, and have a corporate surname... watch it happen)
"And most of America is to complacent to even notice."
Amen to that.
You load sixteen tons. What do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter don't you call me, cuz I can't go - I owe my soul to the company store.
Oh wait, you're right. W, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are "people from the 60's". Ken Lay, Andy Fastow and Jeff Skilling were a bunch of freakin hippies. Why, Alan Greenspan cut off his mullet just last week, and can still be seen covertly head-bopping to the Dead on his walkman. I forgot. And you don't even wanna hear about Rupert Murdoch... Two words, my friend... *party ANIMAL!*
Um, in case you just woke up from a long, long sleep, Clinton hasn't been president for a while now. Oh, and since you bring up how excruciatingly horrible things were under those dreadful "people from the 60's", remember that he presided over the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history.
see my earlier post... the most common complaint from corps who are being lampooned is that the satire or criticism will be misinterpreted as "official version".
right, but i'm sure their ostensible beef is that people would get confused and think this was somehow the official product of the university. Brand confusion, as it were.
that fax came from Texas, that's been proven now. Gee, who do we know that lives in Texas...? Karl Rove used this exact same trick on a different campaign in the 70's.
And besides, this just proves my point. The CBS news dept would have caught that in a heartbeat 20 years ago, because they would have still been competing with other news departments, so they would have been better funded and better motivated. Competition is a wonderful thing, and it's what makes the difference between capitalism (good) and corporatism (bad).
The mainstream media have been rolling over *convulsively* for Bush ever since 9/11, and the utter lack of serious competition in the marketplace only makes it that much worse.
"Only if people are educated enough to understand what they are seeing."
Oh, come on. A stop sign only works if people are educated enough to understand that as well.
"It's hard enough for people to understand the slant in "mainstream" media, let alone deciphering the agendas of dozens of news agencys."
study after study shows that people, no matter what gae, sex, race, or religion, will routinely rise to the level that is expected of them. The only reason the American public (like me) is so stupid is because, deep in our hearts, we think we can get away with it.
"If media is educating us, we are very far gone."
My friend, we are very far gone indeed.
"Media is the entertainment business, it's there to keep our eyes on the TV."
I consider that an overbroad statement. Media is just that, a *medium* for many different messages, for as many different purposes as the day is long. Entertainment is certainly a huge chunk of what the media does, but for decades, education has been huge as well. Educational (which is to say public) television has had a tremendously positive effect on children and thereby society as well. Childrens' cable channels are still some of the most consistantly interesting programs on TV. Large-scale, demographically neutered, hegemonic network programming has become the most consistantly boring. The shows rated the highest ever were, if I'm not mistaken, "A Box Full of Puppies", and "The Happy Colors Show" (obDinosaurs, sorry).
"There is also concept called market consolidation. Newspapers, TV, radio, it's all business."
Well, business is one side of the coin. Government regulation is the other. Yin and yang, dark and light, they couldn't exist without the other. Without business to regulate, those relevant portions of the government would cease to exist (eventually). And believe it or not, folks, but business actually can't survive sustainably without regulation. I mean, the ultimate de-regulation would be to get rid of all industrial and commercial zoning and tax laws. So everybody gets a Starbucks in their front yard or in the middle of streets, gets nearly assaulted by an employee when they go to complain about it, and nobody can call the cops because there aren't any more laws on the books about what corporations can or can't do. So everybody fucking moves. Unrestrained, unregulated business can kill a community just as surely as cancer chokes an organ. Law and business must *check* and *balance* each other, neither gaining the upper hand.
the Italian Dictionary from 1938, the people who prettymuch invented modern fascism, deinfed it as a government by corporations. So take it from them, not me.
Amen to that. And we have good old deregulation to thank for it. The media would never have rolled over to the extent that they have for Bush even as recently as 15-20 years ago. The fewer players there have become, the worse the content has gotten. This is a clearly observable trend across many media, in many disparate cases. From ClearChannel radio stations that are a uniform shade of puke to the cable giant Viacom, which owns so many things on cable that if they don't want a story run, it won't be run... IE the Reagan thing on CBS, which Viacom owns...
The bottom line is, in a democracy there's no good reason for a very few major media players to own the game. A free and *responsible* press, along with good education, is something without which a democracy cannot function. Media consolidation, and the rampant homogeniety and misinformation it engenders time and time again, are probably the biggest internal threat to American democracy today.
"OK, so it's a GB, but it doesn't mean that you won't want to find email to delete after a year or so, especially with large attachments like spreadsheets or pdf's."
remember, though, that part of the deal for the gig of space is that they get to read your mail. I mean, for the purposes of amassing a giant store of personal information, they *want* you to leave as many emails there as possible, for as long as possible, attachments included.
Are you just gonna make insulting implications about me (untrue BTW) or are you gonna deal with the issue of PBS taking a hard right turn? I'm waiting.
Slashdot Mirror
...WebTV?
eh, they somehow manage to force themselves to sell me a product anyway, so don't cry too many black black tears for the local retailer - I've been friends with a couple and don't you worry, they're still making money just fine.
More importantly, they're putting real market pressure on WalFart and Office Despot to keep their prices in the general neighborhood of reality. Eliminate the small local retailers and just watch how many big boxes double their prices.
"Whoa... you must be like on every terrorist watchlist...."
Well, I'm a liberal Unitarian, so yeah, I'm sure I am...
"I bought an iMac (the original one, so this was a while ago) with cash (about $1400 in $500 and $100 bills iirc). The cashier had to call the manager to ask what to do!"
When I worked at a large car dealership they put me through the same orientation as the salesmen (I was a detailer) when we all got hired. Turns out if somebody walks in with over ten grand in cash, you're supposed to call the cops, because having that much cash on you is literally against the law. Whatever happened to currency being legal tender for all debts, public and private? I must have missed the footnote, "debt not to exceed ten thousand dollars".
A lot of places these days don't have cash registers because it makes their insurance go up. A few apartments ago I tried to pay my rent in cash and they straight up refused to accept it.
A word to the wise... If you want to appear intelligent in front of other intelligent people, it's usually a good idea to stay away from statements that start out with "you must be X because of Y".
Some examples: "you're a lesbian? you must hate all men" or "you're a republican? you must want to rape the environment" or "you're a liberal? you must want to abolish all religion".
The fact that you make the statement shows that your mind is already made up. There's a word for that where I come from, and that word is prejudice.
And prejudice sucks ass.
Wow, what a great troll. You got me, anyway. You've apparently spent the last 20 years of your life not shopping for music, or you would have heard of:
A) remixes (this is when new compositional features are adding to a previously existing composition, which is then re-released and sold as a separate and discrete product)
B) remasters (this is when new sonic features are added to a previously existing recorded composition, which is then re-released and sold as a separate and discrete product)
C) expanded re-releases (in addition to the above, this includes albums re-released with bonus tracks, videos, posters, etc. - franz ferdinand and the white stripes being two recent examples)
But seriously, nice troll.
Well, I'll probably be in the minority here, but since I don't have a bank account or a credit card, there's a couple local shops I go to for almost everything, component-wise (though I think I did get my last CD burner from WalFart). It's instant retail gratification, they carry most of what I need for a marginal markup, and they can be bargained with in ways WalMart and Office Depot can't. Plus I get to feel all warm and tingly about supporting local merchants.
You seem to be equating WalMart's market hegemony with competition. Competition is among more than one party, competition isn't just one company getting incredibly huge and eating up every other company or market that poses any kind of competition to it. WalMart seems to me to be the very essence of anti-competition.
Call me crazy, but where I come from Capialism (which I do conisder a good thing) requires competition and a marketplace. When you remove any and all real, substantial competition from Capitalism, it becomes Corporatism, which I do definately consider a bad thing. It's not Capitalism if nobody can compete with the behemoths that are already on the scene. And it's not much of a marketplace if one major player dominates everything, because who's going to choose, voluntarily, to pay a higher price? And the ultimate loser is always the consumer, the very person Capitalism is supposed to be good for (by offering choices in the marketplace).
And while I agree that capital is important, let's not forget that all capital comes from WORK. Which is done by PEOPLE. Without workers there would be no companies, no managers, and no capital. People can get by just fine without corporations, corporations can't get by without people (as workers and consumers). Capital is certainly important, and many companies do make life more pleasant, but we've lost all sense of BALANCE between labor and capital. The Capitalist system only works when both labor and capital are valued. And if we don't correct the imbalance, the system will crash.
Hey kids, did it ever occur to any of you, on either side, that maybe the best thing isn't to have ONLY competition, or ONLY cooperation, but maybe some fucking BALANCE?!?! You are ALL trying to argue that the coin should only have one side! There are times and places that competition is important. There are certainly times and places that cooperation is important as well. Every workplace, every friendship, and every band I've ever been in has, at times been competitive. And at other times, they've also been cooperative. This is the way of the world, people. Male and female. Democrat and Republican. Night and day. Heads and tails. Light and shadow. Ford and GM. NEVER will ANY of these completely eradicate the other. Existance is dualistic and cyclical. Cooperation and competition are both equally and immensely important to a person's well-being, and neither could exist without the other, because they define each other by opposition. Both the CCCP and Dickensian England were completely unsustainable for precisely this reason - the one believed solely in cooperation while the other believed solely in competition. And both were eventually compelled to make radical changes in their society. The thing that has always made America great has been our ability to compromise, we lose that at our peril.
So suck it up, quit pretending that there's only one right answer, quit acting like spoiled children who just want their way... and BALANCE!!!!!
Well, I'm willing to accept their not making money they expected to make (because people downloaded stuff they didn't pay for) as a "loss", as long as they're willing to accept their making money they didn't expect to make (because people downloaded stuff and DID buy it) as a "gain". That knife cuts both ways, so they can bring it.
" I should know better than to post anything on slashdot that isn't to the left of Michael Moore."
Oh stop feeling sorry for yourself. Nobody held a gun to your head to make you write this. You actually think you're right.
"(up to and including not bothering to make money)"
This is ludicrous. Nobody anywhere in America is making the voluntary decision to not make money. Nobody. Bill Gates and George Soros are still trying to make more money. I mean, they must not know they are being taxed or else they would just stop working, right?
In point of fact, Einstein, most of us who don't have rich family are working two or more jobs just to pay the bills. I know I am (production support analyst/apartment manager/freelance web designer). My mom, who actually has a degree from a reputable school, is teaching remedial english in a rural Florida public high school (fun!), while simultaneously being director of RE at her church, and caretaker of a developmentally disabled child. And that's with a bachelor's. My dad, a former regional VP for a very old telecom, has his in EE, with years of telecom experience. He teaches at another public high school in north Florida, while working the sound for his church for a pittance. They just sold everything they owned. Their last rent check bounced.
Between the two of them, they hold five jobs.
Currently, how many jobs have you, sir?
"14th highest out of 150"
But isn't our standard of living FIRST out of 150? Isn't the gap between 1 and 14, like... two touchdowns or something? I mean, a 14-year-old human probably already has public hair, and there's states out west where it's legal to have sex with them. 14 points on a test could at least make the difference between an A and a C, or at worst make or break an entire semester. But I belabor, where I had intent only to illustrate... but I tell you what, Bobby, if I could pay the rent for the 14th nicest house on the block, but live in the FIRST nicest... Mmmm hmm. Yup.
And while we're taking a nice, close look at that scale of your'n thar, exactly how close together are those bottom 136? RANK of taxation doesn't matter, it's just another statistical red herring thrown out by people who would rather you not notice just how many times they could buy and sell you and your entire family.
Look at it this way - If I beat somebody in a race by twenty laps, and he in turn is followed closely by the rest of the pack within the span of a second, it doesn't matter that he came in second of 100. He was still almost last in terms of quantity of time. And quantitatively, I still whupped 'em all.
RANK of taxation doesn't matter. It's not quantitative, it's relative, it tells you what everything is next to. RATE of taxation does, because it IS quantitative, it tells you where everything *is*, right now. We pay incredibly low taxes given the benefits. If you want fewer benefits for fewer taxes, quit talking bullshit and move. Start packing that suitcase for Botswana, singing joyfully about how few taxes you'll have to pay.
And don't forget your pistol. And a lot of fresh water. And a lot of batteries. And probably some suntan lotion, like a gallon or so. Have fun, don't forget to write to tell us how great it is not having to pay taxes and hunting for ferrets!
You're dancing around the issue like all the other tax-haters. What do you think pay for your police, your firemen, your schools? You think they come from, like, magic pixie dust? Cuz I guarantee you, pal, that when some of my hoodlum friends break into your house to steal your stereo, you *will* want to call the police. Do you expect them to hand you a bill when they leave, or just swipe your card?
Look, you don't have to deal with reality if you don't want to. You and I both know if you could have an American standard of life for cheaper, you'd move. There's a reason people line up around the globe to get into this country. It's because they're literally dyi
"In fact, the rich pay almost all the taxes anyway. In the US, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 70% of the taxes."
And those same groups get way more out of the experience of living in whatever it is they're paying taxes to, so why shouldn't that added value be compensated for? Americans still pay among the lowest overall taxes in the world, IIRC. To live anywhere else in the world and maintain my standard of American life I'd have to pay through the ass. Canada, Europe, England, Japan... all have higher taxes than the US. Even some 3rd world countries do.
"But even before that they can go back to the tax shelters."
I'm all for abolishing tax shelters.
"John Kerry and his charming wife have been paying a tax rate of about 12%."
I'm not a student of tax statistics, but I've always heard, anecdotally, that the *very* richest people in the country, like John Kerry and Bill Gates, pay next to nothing.
"don't support socialism thinking you're going to get the Kerrys to pay for it."
oh, don't get me wrong. I'll never be the president of the John Kerry fan club. I'm well aware that Kerry is just as corporate as Bush is. At this point the only reason I'm voting for him is that he's at least a multi-lateral corporatist. Who won't go around talking about crusades, let his generals say we're fighting a Christian war on Islam, piss off almost everybody that matters in the world, let the Pakistanis and North Koreans get nukes, and start a war with a country that didn't do anything to us and wasn't capable of doing so even when attacked. And then fuck that up like every opportunity he was handed, every duty he owed his country, every business he ran, every well he dug, every team he owned.
it's the little things, I guess.
"Here's the bad part, for as much as the Democrats and Republicans can say they are different, they are both so authoritarian and elitist,"
i think the word you're looking for is "corporatist".
"Republicans can say that they are more fiscally responsible, that they try to lower taxes, that they support rights, but where are their examples? Bush increased spending during his term,"
As did King George the First, as did King Ronnie. My favorite republican quote is "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Karl Rove, I think...
"and we all know that Democrats support larger government."
Do we? Bill Clinton did a lot of wrong shit, but he made a campign promise to end welfare as we know it, and damned if he didn't come within a hairs breadth of doing exactly that. And eliminated the federal defecit. How?
By taxing most those whom taxes affect the least.
"The rest of the world can stop bitching and just wait, because our direction is heading right toward Socialism, there is no questioning that."
Wow. I wish I lived in the same America you do. No, my friend, the direction we are heading in is most definately *not* toward socialsm, unfortunely. I saw this cited in somebody's sig file here once, and kick myself daily for not bookmarking it, but the Italian Dictionary from 1936, written by and for the people who pretty much *invented* modern Fascism, defined Fascism as "a government by Corporations". Fascism is where we're headed, and we're uncomfortably close today. And beyond that lies only Corporate Feudalism (you eat, sleep and bathe at the workplace, have little to no rights thanks to a pre-employment EULA, and have a corporate surname... watch it happen)
"And most of America is to complacent to even notice."
Amen to that.
You load sixteen tons. What do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter don't you call me, cuz I can't go - I owe my soul to the company store.
Google it.
Huh?
Oh wait, you're right. W, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are "people from the 60's". Ken Lay, Andy Fastow and Jeff Skilling were a bunch of freakin hippies. Why, Alan Greenspan cut off his mullet just last week, and can still be seen covertly head-bopping to the Dead on his walkman. I forgot. And you don't even wanna hear about Rupert Murdoch... Two words, my friend... *party ANIMAL!*
Um, in case you just woke up from a long, long sleep, Clinton hasn't been president for a while now. Oh, and since you bring up how excruciatingly horrible things were under those dreadful "people from the 60's", remember that he presided over the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history.
Exactly who's forgetting what here, Aldredge?
see my earlier post... the most common complaint from corps who are being lampooned is that the satire or criticism will be misinterpreted as "official version".
like i've said before and will say again, have fun taking this one all the way to the rehnquist/scalia supreme court...
right, but i'm sure their ostensible beef is that people would get confused and think this was somehow the official product of the university. Brand confusion, as it were.
cuz sure, the university owns the name, and won't want their name being used to promote things they disagree with.
OTOH, it's a *public* university, if it's in the UC system. So then if you're a taxpayer, doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights?
Morally speaking, of course. I'm sure they'll win in court.
that fax came from Texas, that's been proven now. Gee, who do we know that lives in Texas...? Karl Rove used this exact same trick on a different campaign in the 70's.
And besides, this just proves my point. The CBS news dept would have caught that in a heartbeat 20 years ago, because they would have still been competing with other news departments, so they would have been better funded and better motivated. Competition is a wonderful thing, and it's what makes the difference between capitalism (good) and corporatism (bad).
The mainstream media have been rolling over *convulsively* for Bush ever since 9/11, and the utter lack of serious competition in the marketplace only makes it that much worse.
"Only if people are educated enough to understand what they are seeing."
Oh, come on. A stop sign only works if people are educated enough to understand that as well.
"It's hard enough for people to understand the slant in "mainstream" media, let alone deciphering the agendas of dozens of news agencys."
study after study shows that people, no matter what gae, sex, race, or religion, will routinely rise to the level that is expected of them. The only reason the American public (like me) is so stupid is because, deep in our hearts, we think we can get away with it.
"If media is educating us, we are very far gone."
My friend, we are very far gone indeed.
"Media is the entertainment business, it's there to keep our eyes on the TV."
I consider that an overbroad statement. Media is just that, a *medium* for many different messages, for as many different purposes as the day is long. Entertainment is certainly a huge chunk of what the media does, but for decades, education has been huge as well. Educational (which is to say public) television has had a tremendously positive effect on children and thereby society as well. Childrens' cable channels are still some of the most consistantly interesting programs on TV. Large-scale, demographically neutered, hegemonic network programming has become the most consistantly boring. The shows rated the highest ever were, if I'm not mistaken, "A Box Full of Puppies", and "The Happy Colors Show" (obDinosaurs, sorry).
"There is also concept called market consolidation. Newspapers, TV, radio, it's all business."
Well, business is one side of the coin. Government regulation is the other. Yin and yang, dark and light, they couldn't exist without the other. Without business to regulate, those relevant portions of the government would cease to exist (eventually). And believe it or not, folks, but business actually can't survive sustainably without regulation. I mean, the ultimate de-regulation would be to get rid of all industrial and commercial zoning and tax laws. So everybody gets a Starbucks in their front yard or in the middle of streets, gets nearly assaulted by an employee when they go to complain about it, and nobody can call the cops because there aren't any more laws on the books about what corporations can or can't do. So everybody fucking moves. Unrestrained, unregulated business can kill a community just as surely as cancer chokes an organ. Law and business must *check* and *balance* each other, neither gaining the upper hand.
the Italian Dictionary from 1938, the people who prettymuch invented modern fascism, deinfed it as a government by corporations. So take it from them, not me.
I guess that would depend on how interesting the bot thought your email was.
Amen to that. And we have good old deregulation to thank for it. The media would never have rolled over to the extent that they have for Bush even as recently as 15-20 years ago. The fewer players there have become, the worse the content has gotten. This is a clearly observable trend across many media, in many disparate cases. From ClearChannel radio stations that are a uniform shade of puke to the cable giant Viacom, which owns so many things on cable that if they don't want a story run, it won't be run... IE the Reagan thing on CBS, which Viacom owns...
The bottom line is, in a democracy there's no good reason for a very few major media players to own the game. A free and *responsible* press, along with good education, is something without which a democracy cannot function. Media consolidation, and the rampant homogeniety and misinformation it engenders time and time again, are probably the biggest internal threat to American democracy today.
On the plus side, there's always blogs...
I agree. Have fun taking this one all the way to the Rehnquist/Scalia Supreme Court.
"OK, so it's a GB, but it doesn't mean that you won't want to find email to delete after a year or so, especially with large attachments like spreadsheets or pdf's."
remember, though, that part of the deal for the gig of space is that they get to read your mail. I mean, for the purposes of amassing a giant store of personal information, they *want* you to leave as many emails there as possible, for as long as possible, attachments included.
nothing is free.
Are you just gonna make insulting implications about me (untrue BTW) or are you gonna deal with the issue of PBS taking a hard right turn? I'm waiting.