This is unconstitutional, period. No person shall be punished for any crime without a trial, read your Bill of Rights. There is no exception clause for US Citizen, it's all people. Them claiming "We think he's going to do something" does not even meet their own criteria. Should we all post on Facebook that Angelina Merkel is going to bomb a post office so that she can be killed by a drone? Yes, that is exactly why they killed the person in question. No proof of any plans, just that they believed it was eminent (I'm sure that they believe in the Easter Bunny too, as long as it's a convenient excuse to do something they want).
The US Government has given weapons, training, and funding to Al Qada in Libya and Syria. Of course we killed a few in Iraq and Afghanistan, because you know. "Terrorists". So the real problem with these groups is whether or not they are playing ball with the US, or have duped the US into believing they are playing ball. Nothing more, nothing less. If they don't play ball, obviously they are terrorists that are going to build canoes and paddle to the US and nuke us with all of the materials they can fit in their canoes.
If certain people had their way, there would be numerous OWS casualties as well. Instead we just see them illegally imprisoned on an abandoned pier in NYC, beat by cops everywhere else.
Part of me wonders whether advertising actually works, or is simply a formalized form of hidden bribery
Sure, advertising works. That's why we have had TV commercials since very early on. Does it work the way people claim it does on the Internet? Well, that is a different question and that answer is "depends".
I think an important thing to remember, is that a metric assload of science has been done specifically for advertising. For some reason, that science is not really used with advertising on Web sites.
What works? Easy. Products and placement with certain colors and sounds, targeting your average audience. This is why demographics for TV and Radio shows are important. Have younger females listening? Advertise woman's products, "light" alcohol, and healthier foods. Have a bunch of younger males watching? Advertise beer, fast food (Extra Big Ass Fries), and men's products. Have a mix of younger adults, run gender neutral ads for cleaning products, baby products, and "family" style food.
The key here is that ads have to be appealing, not overwhelming. Sure, some people fall for the infomercial fast talking guy showing off their "Amazing (Billy Mayes TM)" products, but those are an extreme minority. The majority of web sites either don't care about overloading consumers or don't realize they are doing it.
What does not work? Overload. Slashdot currently has dozens of adds, all blinking and flashing in an attempt to get your attention. This method of advertising is equivalent to having 10 TV commercials simultaneously sharing your TV screen. It's annoying, and the overwhelming majority of people won't click anything even if they might be interested. What they will do is open a new browser window and search in clean space for the product and information. This way they can get it without the overloading of senses. Web sites decided a while ago that since you can't target an audience by any rational means, the majority of the time, you have to overload people with everything they might possibly want and pray that a user clicks and generates a fraction of a penny.
Services like Google ads try to make more sense of your audience so that you can target them more like TV/Radio commercials. Web sites on a massive scale may use the targeted ads, but are still overloading "hoping" for a click.
Psychological studies have shown how good sensory overloading can be at causing discomfort and confusing the audience. Ever wonder why CNN and MSNBC have shit flashing all over the place? Overloading is a huge reason why, and yes it's intentionally done. Not for advertising purposes, but it's an interesting one to study.
Unfortunately, teaching to memorize certain things and not question what an authority tells you is not brand new. Core just extends that. The Plato story I responded to is an easy example. Anyone that actually read "The Republic" should be able to make the same correction, but an overwhelming number of people simply believe what they are told. Worse, they believe the propaganda they have been taught with such conviction that they "correct" people with propaganda as if it was factual. (Propaganda may not be the best term, but a "gross distortion of facts intended to manipulate the audience" is pretty close to the definition of the word.).
Common Core is being unnecessary vilified by people who don't understand it. All Common Core does is define a base line of standards for all children in all states that adopt it. I
Poisoning the well, and then show that you don't know a damn thing about Common Core (funny how you threw that accusation at me). No, it's not just standards. It's standards where the materials must come from Common Core as part of the Copyrights you agree to when signing up for the program. Materials that are horribly confusing intentionally, go look at some of the math examples that people are complaining about. Materials by the way, that are very expensive due to copyrights, are not designed or written by educators (and educators have 0 input), and where the material is trying to get your kids to purchase products at least as much as teach them something.
Common Core is not "Standards Testing", we have "Standards Testing" already and it's of questionable value (Many teachers will tell you that it's very bad for education and worse now that testing is quarterly at most schools).
How about reading a bit of actual book from Common Core and then talking, instead of repeating propaganda and claiming other people just "don't understand". Talk to educators that have read the book and understand the material. I have not read the _whole_ book, it's about 4" thick and I made it through about 400 pages so far. I have friends and relatives who are educators, and I trust their perspective on the material more than I trust you repeating what I can find on a propaganda web site.
First of all, what most students learn in college is what they should learn in high school.
This I agree with 100%, Common Core makes things worse. As does pretty much anything a massive bureaucracy gets it's hand on. But in the US, it's not just the Bureaucracy, it's Media. Watch some prime time TV. It is cool to be stupid, and if you are stupid somehow you can make millions of dollars just being stupid (or slutty, or a criminal, etc...). So not only has our education system gone to shit, but Media has helped them drastically.
The problem we have is that pretty much every job requires a college degree and pretty much every education system is underfunded.
Wrong on both accounts. First, most jobs don't require a college degree but people have been using that as a measure for some time for people that can succeed. It's wrong, and we need to somehow re-educate employers.
To the 2nd part, the education system is not underfunded at all. In fact it's over funded to cover all of the bureaucratic positions that Schools and Colleges have been adding for the last couple decades. UC for example has numerous regents who make very high 6 figure salaries to do nothing. There are backups to the backups to the assistants in many schools, meanwhile a professor has their pay cut and are blamed for the woes in funding. Most public schools today have a paid board, where when I was a kid boards were voluntary and made up of parents. So no, there is no funding problem. There is an abuse problem made partially by Government and partially by greed and nepotism.
But now, I understand and respect their perspective. For example, I proofread the paper of one kid who wrote in response to Plato. Now, he misunderstood what Plato said - but I have to blame the teacher for that, not the student, as his response was appropriate and clever. He responded to the idea that people are of different types - and interpreted it as meaning that a "gold" person is one who comes from influential parents and a "silver" person would come from military parents - whereas of course Plato actually envisioned a world where the children were separated from their parents because birth was not a determinant. Plato was still wrong, of course, because he had children judged far too early, but he never implied it was genetic.
No offense, but you don't understand Plato either. According to Plato, Socrates stated that the Military (Guardians) would not be able to raise their own children while performing their duties, so THEIR children would be raised by the community. The remainder of society would be raising their children just like we do today.
Socrates also stated much earlier in "The Republic" that in order to found a Republic you would have to kick all of the adults out of your society because they knew what corruption was and would bring corruption into the newly found Republic. Therefor, the only way to form a Republic in his opinion was to start with all children, educate them in Philosophy, and then a Republic was possible.
If you want an excellent version of The Republic I can provide one. What we normally see in College Philosophy text books is a gross distortion of the actual "The Republic" (with the exception of The Allegory of the Cave).
Based on how you write, I'm going to guess that either English is your second language or you are not an Educator at your college.
The US Government has spent over a trillion dollars funding a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 6 billion dollars funding a revolt in the Ukraine, at least 9 million dollars funding rebels in Syria (I have not looked at any numbers past what Obama did last September), Billions in beefing up US Local police forces, Billions more on DHS, FEMA, and the TSA, Billions more funding Egypt's various revolutions, and untold amounts in "black budgets" all over Africa. Even the GOA who is supposed to ensure accountability for spent tax dollars, spends millions on a lavish party for 33 people in Las Vegas.
And you think average people who's salaries and average wealth has gone down by nearly 30% in the last decade alone should pay even more money because they could not spent anything on Roads and Infrastructure whilst they pissed away your money everywhere else?
You can't restrict this to just political party affiliation. Most 3 letter government agencies pay for edits under various programs, each as potentially nefarious as the former.
Try correcting something on the Sarin Gas page for example (I had this edit war personally) where someone from a Government IP address last year added a statement that "Assad and Syria were proven to have used Sarin on it's own population". The UN investigations have repeatedly shown that the FSA rebels have used chemical weapons against the populace, and the FSA has been caught smuggling materials from Turkey on several occasions. The UN has never ever concluded that Assad or the Syrian army has done any such thing.
After making a simple correction to "The US alleges" the edit war was on, and every day a new Government IP would have new edits attempting to make it appear factual that Assad had used Sarin on the Syrian population. Every day I would remove and correct information. I don't get paid to edit, so gave up after about a month. It was simply too much time to invest. This is one of many pages edited purely for propaganda purposes by the US Government (ARIN [whois] is free to use, so you can easily see what agency is making edits, even when anonymously).
The shitty scan would prevent you from reading most of it anyway, which is bizarre in itself. Did the FBI give them a CD full of shitty scan data with poor resolution images so it can't scale? Trying to download the content I hit a auth wall requiring a ScribeD account.. I could probably find a different method of access, but it's not worth the effort for something trivial like this.
Personally outside of the fact that the FBI actually answered a FOIA request I don't see this as "News" and especially not "News worthy". If they would have answered a question about the government harassment of Senator Jon DeCamp I'd be impressed.
I have no choice but to make assumptions and even admit as much. Above, in response to an AC post, I provide an interesting link to the questionable behaviors and actions of the so called "charity" which is usually what people point to in an effort to claim "he's a really good guy".
I have no information on his kids financial status, but claiming that they would have to receive money directly from him is nonsense. His kids could receive money, jobs, etc.. from various sources simply because they are "his" children. Look at Chelsae Clinton making $900,000.00 a year working part time for NBC. Her job according to NBC was to provide periodic information on "The Clinton activities".
You can believe what ever you want, I'm just claiming that historically when people have remorse for how they have gained their wealth they usually behave quite differently. You can verify that information by reading about occasions where that happened, or not.
Dear anonymous apologist, or shill (impossible to tell the difference).
In your alleged 10 second Google search by adding a single word you would see how this is not a one sided altruistic organization. I won't stoop to a LMGTFY link, but try adding the word "Corruption" to your search on the Gates foundation.
With the addition of this single word, you will easily find references to doctors and professors who have been requesting investigations into the foundation as not just a tax shelter but a corrupt organization. The top link is a Wiki linking to numerous pieces of information which is here. Text from the links on this page are below, and just a glance shows that it's YOU that are living in a cave and not myself. Kindly take your personal attack and pound it right on up your asshole, preferably with a few pounds of sand and a large hammer.
2014
[edit] June
Professor Diane Ravitch Calls for Investigation by Congress of Bill Gates’ Latest Offences
[edit] April
People Who Worked on Bill Gates Projects Speak to Techrights About Fraud and Misappropriation of Funds
Society Still Occupied by Bill Gates and Other Plutocrats
[edit] January
Systematic Looting of Society Disguised as ‘Crisis’ (for Austerity/Privatisation) and Bogus ‘Charity’ as Solution
The Age When Press Organisations Are Run by — Not Just Funded by — Plutocrats
[edit] 2013
Most coverage posted in Identi.ca, Diaspora, and Twitter this year.
[edit] December
Mother Jones Shows That Gates Foundation is a Hypocritical Ploy
Bill Gates Brings NSA-esque Surveillance to Children
[edit] November
Convicted Monopolist Near Our Children
Crisis Capitalism: Bill Gates and Other ‘Education Oligarchs’ Turn Schools Into their Private, For-Profit Ventures
If you look at his wealth historically you can see if he had some sort of revelation and is now feeling bad about how he fucked people over. His wealth is increasing annually, not decreasing, so there is no reformation.
Same old same old in my opinion. If he got no tax breaks for doing charity work, he would not be doing charity work. I'm not his CPA, but I'm guessing that his "charity" ends where the tax breaks end. His charity work also happens to be largely philanthropic, but I don't agree with his version of philanthropy and believe it's harming society much more then benefiting it.
If I met him, I may be persuaded to have a different opinion. Perhaps he could demonstrate how he's really not abusing the charity work for tax purposes, and show me how his philanthropy is supposed to work over time so it's not as nefarious as it seems. I won't hold my breath for that to happen.
Apologies for the delayed response, the feedback is appreciated and noticed.
Again, I agree with most of your article. As I stated, I don't think what Torry Point did was right and since it involved Cisco I don't believe there was much to do for objectivity. The article seems to be very well researched and very well thought out.
I still don't agree with the point about reverse engineering. I have worked in IT for 30 years at several very large companies including DOD work. (not Cisco or Juniper). I agree with the potential for that to exist, and would even state that it happens from time to time, but it's not the reason for purchasing competing products most of the time.
That said, it could have been the purpose with Torry Point and Cisco arrangements. I don't have inside knowledge, just knowledge of the industry and practices.
Thanks again for the feedback, you have my utmost respect and appreciation.
My point was more that holding Lerner in contempt is not as big of a deal as holding the chain of management and IT people in contempt. There is legal justification to do just that and it should be done.
Actually an internet store would be easier to boycott because you are not required to be at a location. Start posting on every possible site "This URL is a rip off, don't shop there" and add reasons why. If it's legitimate, they can't sue you. If you post under an identity it will hold credibility as well.
I have a news flash for you, corporations don't care AT ALL what the public thinks.
First, no need to be a dick. I was courteous in my response and we can have rational dialogue without sarcasm. To your point, I agree that some companies don't care. This is especially true where the Government has allowed monopolization. More reason to change out politicians and start disbanding these monopolies in my opinion.
When you think about even the massive companies like Comcast however, if consumers all started switching to Dish or ATT Uverse it would impact their bottom line. So the issue there is not that consumers can't force change by boycotting, the issue is that it's extremely difficult to organize a mass boycott on the scale required for harming a company like Comcast.
Most companies however, are not of the size and scale where they can afford boycotts for any duration of time. Pressure by consumers has forced many companies to change behavior or go out of business.
Does the ACLU have a minimum income requirement for membership? What about the NRA? The AARP? The Teamsters? The NEA?
That is absolutely absurd. Are you really implying that a donor is now the policy makers out giving speeches? Are you further trying to imply that the purpose of all of those groups is nefarious at heart? Are you further trying to imply that those groups get active time on TV and Radio shows outside of being slandered by teleprompter reading actors and actresses?
Those are rhetorical questions, and yes you are implying all of those things. All of them are idiocy at heart and a further attempt to try and shift blame.
Who are the rich people that you are apparently claiming are "spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars"?
Ahh, the denials are so sweet. Look at how much money George Soros and the "National Endowment for Democracy" pumped into the Ukraine prior to their latest revolution. Easier to track is how much we pumped there for their first revolt a few years back. You won't do the work though, you will just "Deny" and/or "Distract" again won't you? Yeah, we have chatted before and you smell like a dirty sock puppet from here.
Given the totality of the views that you have expressed, I'm not sure that I'm convinced you are against corruption as a general principle so much as you are against your own government.
I don't need a horse to topple your straw man argument. I was very clear in my points and you can not argue with unless you fabricate information (outright lie).
Political ideologues aren't simply "always going to be around." Some of them are dangerous and need to be guarded against.
Somehow thought police will prevent this right? Oh wait, you just repeated yourself on a point I agreed with but somehow insinuate that we can control thoughts. Hrm...
You don't think an educated person could look at classified documents and make such a distinction? I'm not sure you are thinking very hard about this, or perhaps are over thinking things considerably.
Document contains agent X investigating terrorist Y and is tracking financial information for weapon purchases. Anyone looking at that would know the communication is legitimately classified, if anything is to be released redact Y, X, money amounts, and other pertinent data that would be useful to terrorists to hide their tracks or harm the agent.
That same logic works if the document says "We need to keep this hush or the public is going to have a tizzy about how we are abusing the trust", obviously this type of information is classified for bogus reasons.
I spent a good portion of my life working in the industry and changed sides after realizing the extent of the corruption. You are either sleeping or willfully playing along like a good little toady thinking you will get a crumb. Notice how you hide behind anonymity because you are so sure of your convictions...
Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society. They don't influence tax code to give themselves more money and screw over those rich guys. They are not paying lobbyists to get favorable laws passed. They are not spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars, and they are not out generating propaganda so that they can send the rich kids off to die in a war for profit.
Sure, there are people in every society that will take advantage of others for gain. We are supposed to have laws protecting us universally from that happening, yet today if you are rich you can take billions and walk but if you are poor and sell a joint you are doing 1-5 years.
So yeah, the ideologies are always going to be around. Those ideologies have been around since our earliest political writings (read Plato's "The Republic"). This is why we (you included) should be fighting to clean up the corruption, end the monopolization of media, and break up the financial cartels.
I believe that you are grossly and intentionally ignoring how and why documents have been classified historically by the US Government and its agencies. This is not something new, unfortunately the abuse goes back at least to the 1960s. COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird are just two examples where systems were abused for political gain and oppression. Those two are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but the easiest to find information about.
That said, this judge could agree with the Government that there is a secret to be kept. Your insinuation that a judge is not intelligent enough to make the distinction is both disturbing and disgusting. The judge may release portions of the documents they feel safe, or the whole, or none.
The false claim being made by government agencies and FISA courts is that they can't reveal _anything_ for security reasons. Even when discussing terrorist activity this can be easily displayed with redacted information. You are either falling for the gag, or trying to proliferate it. Either way, shame on you.
More and more people are waking up to the level of corruption we currently have in the USA. Quite frankly, not everyone in politics is on the side of the "insiders" trying to pull all the strings. Pressure is mounting for change and to clean up the corruption, citizens must keep this up until it's actually resolved.
I'm pretty sure you are missing the majority of what a "Boycott" is. There is a part about actively convincing others to boycott the same company, in addition to you not buying their stuff. The result is that more and more people damage the companies reputation, and fewer and fewer people purchasing their goods or services. This forces the company to either change their ways to get more consumers or go out of business.
Consumer activism is critical for any society, and it actually works very well when applied properly.
Slashdot Mirror
This is unconstitutional, period. No person shall be punished for any crime without a trial, read your Bill of Rights. There is no exception clause for US Citizen, it's all people. Them claiming "We think he's going to do something" does not even meet their own criteria. Should we all post on Facebook that Angelina Merkel is going to bomb a post office so that she can be killed by a drone? Yes, that is exactly why they killed the person in question. No proof of any plans, just that they believed it was eminent (I'm sure that they believe in the Easter Bunny too, as long as it's a convenient excuse to do something they want).
What on Earth made you think he was not on that same team? The first term of "Hope and Change" was not enough to prove he is nothing more than a liar?
The US Government has given weapons, training, and funding to Al Qada in Libya and Syria. Of course we killed a few in Iraq and Afghanistan, because you know. "Terrorists". So the real problem with these groups is whether or not they are playing ball with the US, or have duped the US into believing they are playing ball. Nothing more, nothing less. If they don't play ball, obviously they are terrorists that are going to build canoes and paddle to the US and nuke us with all of the materials they can fit in their canoes.
If certain people had their way, there would be numerous OWS casualties as well. Instead we just see them illegally imprisoned on an abandoned pier in NYC, beat by cops everywhere else.
It's "Mericuh" you insensitive clod...
Part of me wonders whether advertising actually works, or is simply a formalized form of hidden bribery
Sure, advertising works. That's why we have had TV commercials since very early on. Does it work the way people claim it does on the Internet? Well, that is a different question and that answer is "depends".
I think an important thing to remember, is that a metric assload of science has been done specifically for advertising. For some reason, that science is not really used with advertising on Web sites.
What works? Easy. Products and placement with certain colors and sounds, targeting your average audience. This is why demographics for TV and Radio shows are important. Have younger females listening? Advertise woman's products, "light" alcohol, and healthier foods. Have a bunch of younger males watching? Advertise beer, fast food (Extra Big Ass Fries), and men's products. Have a mix of younger adults, run gender neutral ads for cleaning products, baby products, and "family" style food.
The key here is that ads have to be appealing, not overwhelming. Sure, some people fall for the infomercial fast talking guy showing off their "Amazing (Billy Mayes TM)" products, but those are an extreme minority. The majority of web sites either don't care about overloading consumers or don't realize they are doing it.
What does not work? Overload. Slashdot currently has dozens of adds, all blinking and flashing in an attempt to get your attention. This method of advertising is equivalent to having 10 TV commercials simultaneously sharing your TV screen. It's annoying, and the overwhelming majority of people won't click anything even if they might be interested. What they will do is open a new browser window and search in clean space for the product and information. This way they can get it without the overloading of senses. Web sites decided a while ago that since you can't target an audience by any rational means, the majority of the time, you have to overload people with everything they might possibly want and pray that a user clicks and generates a fraction of a penny.
Services like Google ads try to make more sense of your audience so that you can target them more like TV/Radio commercials. Web sites on a massive scale may use the targeted ads, but are still overloading "hoping" for a click.
Psychological studies have shown how good sensory overloading can be at causing discomfort and confusing the audience. Ever wonder why CNN and MSNBC have shit flashing all over the place? Overloading is a huge reason why, and yes it's intentionally done. Not for advertising purposes, but it's an interesting one to study.
Unfortunately, teaching to memorize certain things and not question what an authority tells you is not brand new. Core just extends that. The Plato story I responded to is an easy example. Anyone that actually read "The Republic" should be able to make the same correction, but an overwhelming number of people simply believe what they are told. Worse, they believe the propaganda they have been taught with such conviction that they "correct" people with propaganda as if it was factual. (Propaganda may not be the best term, but a "gross distortion of facts intended to manipulate the audience" is pretty close to the definition of the word.).
Common Core is being unnecessary vilified by people who don't understand it. All Common Core does is define a base line of standards for all children in all states that adopt it. I
Poisoning the well, and then show that you don't know a damn thing about Common Core (funny how you threw that accusation at me). No, it's not just standards. It's standards where the materials must come from Common Core as part of the Copyrights you agree to when signing up for the program. Materials that are horribly confusing intentionally, go look at some of the math examples that people are complaining about. Materials by the way, that are very expensive due to copyrights, are not designed or written by educators (and educators have 0 input), and where the material is trying to get your kids to purchase products at least as much as teach them something.
Common Core is not "Standards Testing", we have "Standards Testing" already and it's of questionable value (Many teachers will tell you that it's very bad for education and worse now that testing is quarterly at most schools).
How about reading a bit of actual book from Common Core and then talking, instead of repeating propaganda and claiming other people just "don't understand". Talk to educators that have read the book and understand the material. I have not read the _whole_ book, it's about 4" thick and I made it through about 400 pages so far. I have friends and relatives who are educators, and I trust their perspective on the material more than I trust you repeating what I can find on a propaganda web site.
First of all, what most students learn in college is what they should learn in high school.
This I agree with 100%, Common Core makes things worse. As does pretty much anything a massive bureaucracy gets it's hand on. But in the US, it's not just the Bureaucracy, it's Media. Watch some prime time TV. It is cool to be stupid, and if you are stupid somehow you can make millions of dollars just being stupid (or slutty, or a criminal, etc...). So not only has our education system gone to shit, but Media has helped them drastically.
The problem we have is that pretty much every job requires a college degree and pretty much every education system is underfunded.
Wrong on both accounts. First, most jobs don't require a college degree but people have been using that as a measure for some time for people that can succeed. It's wrong, and we need to somehow re-educate employers.
To the 2nd part, the education system is not underfunded at all. In fact it's over funded to cover all of the bureaucratic positions that Schools and Colleges have been adding for the last couple decades. UC for example has numerous regents who make very high 6 figure salaries to do nothing. There are backups to the backups to the assistants in many schools, meanwhile a professor has their pay cut and are blamed for the woes in funding. Most public schools today have a paid board, where when I was a kid boards were voluntary and made up of parents. So no, there is no funding problem. There is an abuse problem made partially by Government and partially by greed and nepotism.
But now, I understand and respect their perspective. For example, I proofread the paper of one kid who wrote in response to Plato. Now, he misunderstood what Plato said - but I have to blame the teacher for that, not the student, as his response was appropriate and clever. He responded to the idea that people are of different types - and interpreted it as meaning that a "gold" person is one who comes from influential parents and a "silver" person would come from military parents - whereas of course Plato actually envisioned a world where the children were separated from their parents because birth was not a determinant. Plato was still wrong, of course, because he had children judged far too early, but he never implied it was genetic.
No offense, but you don't understand Plato either. According to Plato, Socrates stated that the Military (Guardians) would not be able to raise their own children while performing their duties, so THEIR children would be raised by the community. The remainder of society would be raising their children just like we do today.
Socrates also stated much earlier in "The Republic" that in order to found a Republic you would have to kick all of the adults out of your society because they knew what corruption was and would bring corruption into the newly found Republic. Therefor, the only way to form a Republic in his opinion was to start with all children, educate them in Philosophy, and then a Republic was possible.
If you want an excellent version of The Republic I can provide one. What we normally see in College Philosophy text books is a gross distortion of the actual "The Republic" (with the exception of The Allegory of the Cave).
Based on how you write, I'm going to guess that either English is your second language or you are not an Educator at your college.
The US Government has spent over a trillion dollars funding a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 6 billion dollars funding a revolt in the Ukraine, at least 9 million dollars funding rebels in Syria (I have not looked at any numbers past what Obama did last September), Billions in beefing up US Local police forces, Billions more on DHS, FEMA, and the TSA, Billions more funding Egypt's various revolutions, and untold amounts in "black budgets" all over Africa. Even the GOA who is supposed to ensure accountability for spent tax dollars, spends millions on a lavish party for 33 people in Las Vegas.
And you think average people who's salaries and average wealth has gone down by nearly 30% in the last decade alone should pay even more money because they could not spent anything on Roads and Infrastructure whilst they pissed away your money everywhere else?
Because Sarin Gas and Wikipedia are not enough information? Come now, you know how to find it.
You can't restrict this to just political party affiliation. Most 3 letter government agencies pay for edits under various programs, each as potentially nefarious as the former.
Try correcting something on the Sarin Gas page for example (I had this edit war personally) where someone from a Government IP address last year added a statement that "Assad and Syria were proven to have used Sarin on it's own population". The UN investigations have repeatedly shown that the FSA rebels have used chemical weapons against the populace, and the FSA has been caught smuggling materials from Turkey on several occasions. The UN has never ever concluded that Assad or the Syrian army has done any such thing.
After making a simple correction to "The US alleges" the edit war was on, and every day a new Government IP would have new edits attempting to make it appear factual that Assad had used Sarin on the Syrian population. Every day I would remove and correct information. I don't get paid to edit, so gave up after about a month. It was simply too much time to invest. This is one of many pages edited purely for propaganda purposes by the US Government (ARIN [whois] is free to use, so you can easily see what agency is making edits, even when anonymously).
The shitty scan would prevent you from reading most of it anyway, which is bizarre in itself. Did the FBI give them a CD full of shitty scan data with poor resolution images so it can't scale? Trying to download the content I hit a auth wall requiring a ScribeD account.. I could probably find a different method of access, but it's not worth the effort for something trivial like this.
Personally outside of the fact that the FBI actually answered a FOIA request I don't see this as "News" and especially not "News worthy". If they would have answered a question about the government harassment of Senator Jon DeCamp I'd be impressed.
I have no choice but to make assumptions and even admit as much. Above, in response to an AC post, I provide an interesting link to the questionable behaviors and actions of the so called "charity" which is usually what people point to in an effort to claim "he's a really good guy".
I have no information on his kids financial status, but claiming that they would have to receive money directly from him is nonsense. His kids could receive money, jobs, etc.. from various sources simply because they are "his" children. Look at Chelsae Clinton making $900,000.00 a year working part time for NBC. Her job according to NBC was to provide periodic information on "The Clinton activities".
You can believe what ever you want, I'm just claiming that historically when people have remorse for how they have gained their wealth they usually behave quite differently. You can verify that information by reading about occasions where that happened, or not.
Dear anonymous apologist, or shill (impossible to tell the difference).
In your alleged 10 second Google search by adding a single word you would see how this is not a one sided altruistic organization. I won't stoop to a LMGTFY link, but try adding the word "Corruption" to your search on the Gates foundation.
With the addition of this single word, you will easily find references to doctors and professors who have been requesting investigations into the foundation as not just a tax shelter but a corrupt organization. The top link is a Wiki linking to numerous pieces of information which is here. Text from the links on this page are below, and just a glance shows that it's YOU that are living in a cave and not myself. Kindly take your personal attack and pound it right on up your asshole, preferably with a few pounds of sand and a large hammer.
2014
[edit] June
Professor Diane Ravitch Calls for Investigation by Congress of Bill Gates’ Latest Offences
[edit] April
People Who Worked on Bill Gates Projects Speak to Techrights About Fraud and Misappropriation of Funds
Society Still Occupied by Bill Gates and Other Plutocrats
[edit] January
Systematic Looting of Society Disguised as ‘Crisis’ (for Austerity/Privatisation) and Bogus ‘Charity’ as Solution
The Age When Press Organisations Are Run by — Not Just Funded by — Plutocrats
[edit] 2013
Most coverage posted in Identi.ca, Diaspora, and Twitter this year.
[edit] December
Mother Jones Shows That Gates Foundation is a Hypocritical Ploy
Bill Gates Brings NSA-esque Surveillance to Children
[edit] November
Convicted Monopolist Near Our Children
Crisis Capitalism: Bill Gates and Other ‘Education Oligarchs’ Turn Schools Into their Private, For-Profit Ventures
If you look at his wealth historically you can see if he had some sort of revelation and is now feeling bad about how he fucked people over. His wealth is increasing annually, not decreasing, so there is no reformation.
Same old same old in my opinion. If he got no tax breaks for doing charity work, he would not be doing charity work. I'm not his CPA, but I'm guessing that his "charity" ends where the tax breaks end. His charity work also happens to be largely philanthropic, but I don't agree with his version of philanthropy and believe it's harming society much more then benefiting it.
If I met him, I may be persuaded to have a different opinion. Perhaps he could demonstrate how he's really not abusing the charity work for tax purposes, and show me how his philanthropy is supposed to work over time so it's not as nefarious as it seems. I won't hold my breath for that to happen.
Apologies for the delayed response, the feedback is appreciated and noticed.
Again, I agree with most of your article. As I stated, I don't think what Torry Point did was right and since it involved Cisco I don't believe there was much to do for objectivity. The article seems to be very well researched and very well thought out.
I still don't agree with the point about reverse engineering. I have worked in IT for 30 years at several very large companies including DOD work. (not Cisco or Juniper). I agree with the potential for that to exist, and would even state that it happens from time to time, but it's not the reason for purchasing competing products most of the time.
That said, it could have been the purpose with Torry Point and Cisco arrangements. I don't have inside knowledge, just knowledge of the industry and practices.
Thanks again for the feedback, you have my utmost respect and appreciation.
My point was more that holding Lerner in contempt is not as big of a deal as holding the chain of management and IT people in contempt. There is legal justification to do just that and it should be done.
Actually an internet store would be easier to boycott because you are not required to be at a location. Start posting on every possible site "This URL is a rip off, don't shop there" and add reasons why. If it's legitimate, they can't sue you. If you post under an identity it will hold credibility as well.
I have a news flash for you, corporations don't care AT ALL what the public thinks.
First, no need to be a dick. I was courteous in my response and we can have rational dialogue without sarcasm. To your point, I agree that some companies don't care. This is especially true where the Government has allowed monopolization. More reason to change out politicians and start disbanding these monopolies in my opinion.
When you think about even the massive companies like Comcast however, if consumers all started switching to Dish or ATT Uverse it would impact their bottom line. So the issue there is not that consumers can't force change by boycotting, the issue is that it's extremely difficult to organize a mass boycott on the scale required for harming a company like Comcast.
Most companies however, are not of the size and scale where they can afford boycotts for any duration of time. Pressure by consumers has forced many companies to change behavior or go out of business.
Does the ACLU have a minimum income requirement for membership? What about the NRA? The AARP? The Teamsters? The NEA?
That is absolutely absurd. Are you really implying that a donor is now the policy makers out giving speeches? Are you further trying to imply that the purpose of all of those groups is nefarious at heart? Are you further trying to imply that those groups get active time on TV and Radio shows outside of being slandered by teleprompter reading actors and actresses?
Those are rhetorical questions, and yes you are implying all of those things. All of them are idiocy at heart and a further attempt to try and shift blame.
Who are the rich people that you are apparently claiming are "spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars"?
Ahh, the denials are so sweet. Look at how much money George Soros and the "National Endowment for Democracy" pumped into the Ukraine prior to their latest revolution. Easier to track is how much we pumped there for their first revolt a few years back. You won't do the work though, you will just "Deny" and/or "Distract" again won't you? Yeah, we have chatted before and you smell like a dirty sock puppet from here.
Given the totality of the views that you have expressed, I'm not sure that I'm convinced you are against corruption as a general principle so much as you are against your own government.
I don't need a horse to topple your straw man argument. I was very clear in my points and you can not argue with unless you fabricate information (outright lie).
Political ideologues aren't simply "always going to be around." Some of them are dangerous and need to be guarded against.
Somehow thought police will prevent this right? Oh wait, you just repeated yourself on a point I agreed with but somehow insinuate that we can control thoughts. Hrm...
You don't think an educated person could look at classified documents and make such a distinction? I'm not sure you are thinking very hard about this, or perhaps are over thinking things considerably.
Document contains agent X investigating terrorist Y and is tracking financial information for weapon purchases. Anyone looking at that would know the communication is legitimately classified, if anything is to be released redact Y, X, money amounts, and other pertinent data that would be useful to terrorists to hide their tracks or harm the agent.
That same logic works if the document says "We need to keep this hush or the public is going to have a tizzy about how we are abusing the trust", obviously this type of information is classified for bogus reasons.
I spent a good portion of my life working in the industry and changed sides after realizing the extent of the corruption. You are either sleeping or willfully playing along like a good little toady thinking you will get a crumb. Notice how you hide behind anonymity because you are so sure of your convictions...
Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society. They don't influence tax code to give themselves more money and screw over those rich guys. They are not paying lobbyists to get favorable laws passed. They are not spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars, and they are not out generating propaganda so that they can send the rich kids off to die in a war for profit.
Sure, there are people in every society that will take advantage of others for gain. We are supposed to have laws protecting us universally from that happening, yet today if you are rich you can take billions and walk but if you are poor and sell a joint you are doing 1-5 years.
So yeah, the ideologies are always going to be around. Those ideologies have been around since our earliest political writings (read Plato's "The Republic"). This is why we (you included) should be fighting to clean up the corruption, end the monopolization of media, and break up the financial cartels.
I believe that you are grossly and intentionally ignoring how and why documents have been classified historically by the US Government and its agencies. This is not something new, unfortunately the abuse goes back at least to the 1960s. COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird are just two examples where systems were abused for political gain and oppression. Those two are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but the easiest to find information about.
That said, this judge could agree with the Government that there is a secret to be kept. Your insinuation that a judge is not intelligent enough to make the distinction is both disturbing and disgusting. The judge may release portions of the documents they feel safe, or the whole, or none.
The false claim being made by government agencies and FISA courts is that they can't reveal _anything_ for security reasons. Even when discussing terrorist activity this can be easily displayed with redacted information. You are either falling for the gag, or trying to proliferate it. Either way, shame on you.
More and more people are waking up to the level of corruption we currently have in the USA. Quite frankly, not everyone in politics is on the side of the "insiders" trying to pull all the strings. Pressure is mounting for change and to clean up the corruption, citizens must keep this up until it's actually resolved.
I'm pretty sure you are missing the majority of what a "Boycott" is. There is a part about actively convincing others to boycott the same company, in addition to you not buying their stuff. The result is that more and more people damage the companies reputation, and fewer and fewer people purchasing their goods or services. This forces the company to either change their ways to get more consumers or go out of business.
Consumer activism is critical for any society, and it actually works very well when applied properly.
Don't worry, that made my head hurt too!!