Consumers getting riled up about something and doing something about it in the US? Not likely. Unless it is something visceral like Gas prices or taxes Americans as consumers don't act as a group to pressusre politicains. As people in the Farmer's lobbying groups or Steelworkers or the Entertainment industry yes, not as consumers. It is somewhat about money for campaigns, but it also about who the politiican wants to listen to and who he or she wants listening (read ego)
Did anyone ever read anything besides the headlines on the statue cover-up? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Halls OfJustice/h allsofjustice110.html
Evidently every time the photogrpahers wanted to take an ironic picture regarding a Justice Deaprtment they squirmed on the floor until they could get a funny picture that would tweak the DOJ
nope he's the Fundamentalists representative to DOJ, no time for anyone else
let alone the thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East killed by US air strikes and economic sanctions?
umm where exactly are thousands of civilians in the Middle East being killed by US airstrikes? People are dying in Iraq and the Iraqi government certainly blames UN sanctions but since there is still plenty of money coming in because of the smuggling going on and the military is getting plenty of money the US is certainly not responsible
Conversation between purchasing Department and IT:
PURCHASING: What does everyone else use for email? IT: Most use Exchange servers and MS Outlook for clients. But... PURCHASING: That's good enough for me, besides no one will question the purchase that way. What about people to run it? What is the easiest and cheapest system to prove that the people running it are trained to do it? IT: exchange but... PURCHASING: I'm calling Redmond now IT: AAAAARRRRGGGH!
The worst thing is he could have beaten the dead guy if he had been alive, didn't have a chnace against the newly dead guys widow, and it was clear she would get the job if the dead guy won.
One thing that everyone seems to forget in revisiting the election and focusing on Florida is that nationwide, and in particular in a handful of states the margin was within the margin of error of our electoral system. Each candidate was trying his best to make sure that he argued that the rules say... The worst thing to do is to solve the problems of the last election by creating new ones. Let's see a nationwide vote where the majority rules, the Presidential election would have been worse. Court challenges and absentee ballot arguments in almost every state. The only thing that constrained it last time was that Florida had enough electoral votes to make the difference. The analysts that are doing postmortems about the election that talk about red and blue America (the differences between the states that Bush and Gore won) see this type of election happening in the future, a change in the electoral system could make the anomalous event of 2000 be even worse every year. No one will know who was elected President until the margin of victory is greater than any remaining uncounted or un-recounted ballots exist
It is a defacto religion among the right, particularly capitalist Wall Street Journal element, that Microsift is responsible for most of the IT economy boom and that they are a wellspring of innovation that drives the industry. It does not matter what details that you expose to them Microsoft is the sole of innovation. Considering most corporate managers (The soul of Bush America) never encounter any IT resources that are not Microsoft based what do you expect. The cospiracy theorists always come out in force about payoffs, access is even more important. Did Hollywood buy off the Clinton administration or was Bill just so taken with hanging out with Warren, Spielberg, Eisner and Babs that that is who he listened to.
I am on principle against filtering; however, this article is seeped in the moral relativism that pervades education thinking. The same issues that this article attacks as a threat are the ones that education advocacy groups want to see taught to as young as they possibly can to promulgate their beliefs. Alternative lifestyle and beliefs need to be accepted (and that acceptance needs to be indoctrinated at an early age)
It does not matter that certain religions or beliefs teach animal or human sacrifice, or that non-believers should be killed, that is as moral as any other belief. Grafitti is an art form, it does not matter if you deface or steal other people's property. I do not want the schools (unless private) teaching Christianity or it's set of beliefs as doctrine; but, at the same time that the seperation of church and state came to be more broadly interpreted starting in the 1960's there has been nothing to replace it. One of the reasons that the Fundamentalist Christian organizations have been able to promote religion in the schools is that many of the parents feel that there has been wholesale abandonship of simple ideas of citizenship and cooperation. It has been replaced with the Nike mentality of "Just Do It" and if you screw over most everyone in your pursuit of doing it it is just their tough luck
Let's see you keep raising prices even though costs of production are declining (particularly the switch from LPs to CDs years ago) even when everyone knows what the real cost of raw materails is. You cheat all of the artists on royalty payments. You try to stop or price out of existence every streaming radio station. YOu insist upon a tax on all blank recordable media in Europe, and try the same in the US. Shutdown Napster and half-heartedly have some of your members set up bad "replacements". Effectively kill the singles market, insisting that everyone buy full albums from one-hit wonders. And, then you are shocked and apalled that everyone is sharing Digital copies?
Censorship is becoming irrelevant, there is so much data out there that people only go to their accustomed places. The recent examples of societies and cultures that have completely different outlooks on things and no matter how voulminous the amount of info they will not change their minds is more of a danger. The 9/11 attacks were a Jewish conspiracy, or planned by the CIA (ask anyone in Saudi Arabia) The Russians were cheated out of Olympic medals (ask anyone in Moscow) The recent story about taxpayers in the US being victimized by confidence men who insisted that they knew how to apply for the slavery reparations in the tax code. People generally listen to things that agree to wha they already agree with and do not want to be challenged on those beliefs and as the internet gets more prevalent as a medium for news delivery it actually makes this more dangerous not less.Self-censorship or viewer choice is the future Just remember to set the preferences so that you only see what you want to
soft money is the money given to the parties for them to run to engage in party activities, they then use that money, with the full involvement and cooperation of the candidates, to run ads.
I am talking about independent groups that will run ads that have not had the input of the candidate, and if the issues matter to them they will run ads.
As evidenced in the UK by many of the books that have banned because of National Security reasons there in not the equivalent of the way the American Law has treated the First Ammendment in most of Europe. The French and German cases regarding Hate Speech on Yahoo and eBay are further examples
The wonders of multi-party democracy, where one small group of people can ram their agenda down the public's throat because they are the difference to a majority in the Congressional Branch. Whether it is Nuclear Power in Germany or Religous laws in Israel, or the stability problems of Italy, more parties is definitely not the answer. Most of those wonderful messages that smaller parties have are in most cases are not interesting to the majority of the public or are opposed by powerful interests (not neccesarily monied) that will fight tooth and nail to stop any discussion of them
If the candidates are not allowed to buy ads, someone else will buy them on their behalf, TV ads work some group that has a point of view will but advertising on behalf of their issue, the main difference will then be that there will be less responsibility for the ads that come out. All of the ratings I have seen have indicated that fair reporting, particularly debates, about rivasl candidates is avoided as much as possible. There have been recent Gubernatorial elections that had difficulty finding anyone to run them. Higher turnout is usaully indicative of either great issues at stake or high degree of party loyalty, neither of those have been true in many of the last few elections, at least in the mind of the public
The campaign reform bills in the wake of Watergate and subsequently have ensured that there are more rich inexperienced candidates and created the PACs that are seen as such a blight. Banning soft money will ensure that all of these groups instead of giving the money to candidates will instead spend the money themselves to back the candidates they want without the candidate's contribution (or at least fingerprints). It is always the horrible corporations that are corrupting the world with money. Let's talk about Labor Unions, the AARP, the automakers (who are usually lobbying on the same side as the Autoworkers), the NRA, Christian Fundamentalist groups...
Not all of these groups want the government to line their pockets, they have issues that they want addressed and they to influence how they are addressed. That is what democracy is about, and since there is a first ammendment the government is not going to tell us that their views should or should not be listened to
Slashdot Mirror
Consumers getting riled up about something and doing something about it in the US? Not likely. Unless it is something visceral like Gas prices or taxes Americans as consumers don't act as a group to pressusre politicains. As people in the Farmer's lobbying groups or Steelworkers or the Entertainment industry yes, not as consumers. It is somewhat about money for campaigns, but it also about who the politiican wants to listen to and who he or she wants listening (read ego)
Did anyone ever read anything besides the headlines on the statue cover-up?s OfJustice/h allsofjustice110.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Hall
Evidently every time the photogrpahers wanted to take an ironic picture regarding a Justice Deaprtment they squirmed on the floor until they could get a funny picture that would tweak the DOJ
MSFT-sponsored zealot now runs the DOJ
nope he's the Fundamentalists representative to DOJ, no time for anyone else
let alone the thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East killed by US air strikes and economic sanctions?
umm where exactly are thousands of civilians in the Middle East being killed by US airstrikes?
People are dying in Iraq and the Iraqi government certainly blames UN sanctions but since there is still plenty of money coming in because of the smuggling going on and the military is getting plenty of money the US is certainly not responsible
Conversation between purchasing Department and IT:
PURCHASING: What does everyone else use for email?
IT: Most use Exchange servers and MS Outlook for clients. But...
PURCHASING: That's good enough for me, besides no one will question the purchase that way. What about people to run it? What is the easiest and cheapest system to prove that the people running it are trained to do it?
IT: exchange but...
PURCHASING: I'm calling Redmond now
IT: AAAAARRRRGGGH!
The worst thing is he could have beaten the dead guy if he had been alive, didn't have a chnace against the newly dead guys widow, and it was clear she would get the job if the dead guy won.
One thing that everyone seems to forget in revisiting the election and focusing on Florida is that nationwide, and in particular in a handful of states the margin was within the margin of error of our electoral system. Each candidate was trying his best to make sure that he argued that the rules say...
The worst thing to do is to solve the problems of the last election by creating new ones.
Let's see a nationwide vote where the majority rules, the Presidential election would have been worse. Court challenges and absentee ballot arguments in almost every state. The only thing that constrained it last time was that Florida had enough electoral votes to make the difference.
The analysts that are doing postmortems about the election that talk about red and blue America (the differences between the states that Bush and Gore won) see this type of election happening in the future, a change in the electoral system could make the anomalous event of 2000 be even worse every year. No one will know who was elected President until the margin of victory is greater than any remaining uncounted or un-recounted ballots exist
It is a defacto religion among the right, particularly capitalist Wall Street Journal element, that Microsift is responsible for most of the IT economy boom and that they are a wellspring of innovation that drives the industry. It does not matter what details that you expose to them Microsoft is the sole of innovation. Considering most corporate managers (The soul of Bush America) never encounter any IT resources that are not Microsoft based what do you expect.
The cospiracy theorists always come out in force about payoffs, access is even more important. Did Hollywood buy off the Clinton administration or was Bill just so taken with hanging out with Warren, Spielberg, Eisner and Babs that that is who he listened to.
I am on principle against filtering; however, this article is seeped in the moral relativism that pervades education thinking. The same issues that this article attacks as a threat are the ones that education advocacy groups want to see taught to as young as they possibly can to promulgate their beliefs. Alternative lifestyle and beliefs need to be accepted (and that acceptance needs to be indoctrinated at an early age)
It does not matter that certain religions or beliefs teach animal or human sacrifice, or that non-believers should be killed, that is as moral as any other belief. Grafitti is an art form, it does not matter if you deface or steal other people's property.
I do not want the schools (unless private) teaching Christianity or it's set of beliefs as doctrine; but, at the same time that the seperation of church and state came to be more broadly interpreted starting in the 1960's there has been nothing to replace it. One of the reasons that the Fundamentalist Christian organizations have been able to promote religion in the schools is that many of the parents feel that there has been wholesale abandonship of simple ideas of citizenship and cooperation. It has been replaced with the Nike mentality of "Just Do It" and if you screw over most everyone in your pursuit of doing it it is just their tough luck
Let's see you keep raising prices even though costs of production are declining (particularly the switch from LPs to CDs years ago) even when everyone knows what the real cost of raw materails is. You cheat all of the artists on royalty payments. You try to stop or price out of existence every streaming radio station. YOu insist upon a tax on all blank recordable media in Europe, and try the same in the US. Shutdown Napster and half-heartedly have some of your members set up bad "replacements". Effectively kill the singles market, insisting that everyone buy full albums from one-hit wonders.
And, then you are shocked and apalled that everyone is sharing Digital copies?
Censorship is becoming irrelevant, there is so much data out there that people only go to their accustomed places. The recent examples of societies and cultures that have completely different outlooks on things and no matter how voulminous the amount of info they will not change their minds is more of a danger.
The 9/11 attacks were a Jewish conspiracy, or planned by the CIA (ask anyone in Saudi Arabia)
The Russians were cheated out of Olympic medals (ask anyone in Moscow)
The recent story about taxpayers in the US being victimized by confidence men who insisted that they knew how to apply for the slavery reparations in the tax code.
People generally listen to things that agree to wha they already agree with and do not want to be challenged on those beliefs and as the internet gets more prevalent as a medium for news delivery it actually makes this more dangerous not less.Self-censorship or viewer choice is the future
Just remember to set the preferences so that you only see what you want to
soft money is the money given to the parties for them to run to engage in party activities, they then use that money, with the full involvement and cooperation of the candidates, to run ads.
I am talking about independent groups that will run ads that have not had the input of the candidate, and if the issues matter to them they will run ads.
As evidenced in the UK by many of the books that have banned because of National Security reasons there in not the equivalent of the way the American Law has treated the First Ammendment in most of Europe. The French and German cases regarding Hate Speech on Yahoo and eBay are further examples
The wonders of multi-party democracy, where one small group of people can ram their agenda down the public's throat because they are the difference to a majority in the Congressional Branch. Whether it is Nuclear Power in Germany or Religous laws in Israel, or the stability problems of Italy, more parties is definitely not the answer. Most of those wonderful messages that smaller parties have are in most cases are not interesting to the majority of the public or are opposed by powerful interests (not neccesarily monied) that will fight tooth and nail to stop any discussion of them
If the candidates are not allowed to buy ads, someone else will buy them on their behalf, TV ads work some group that has a point of view will but advertising on behalf of their issue, the main difference will then be that there will be less responsibility for the ads that come out. All of the ratings I have seen have indicated that fair reporting, particularly debates, about rivasl candidates is avoided as much as possible. There have been recent Gubernatorial elections that had difficulty finding anyone to run them. Higher turnout is usaully indicative of either great issues at stake or high degree of party loyalty, neither of those have been true in many of the last few elections, at least in the mind of the public
The campaign reform bills in the wake of Watergate and subsequently have ensured that there are more rich inexperienced candidates and created the PACs that are seen as such a blight. Banning soft money will ensure that all of these groups instead of giving the money to candidates will instead spend the money themselves to back the candidates they want without the candidate's contribution (or at least fingerprints). It is always the horrible corporations that are corrupting the world with money. Let's talk about Labor Unions, the AARP, the automakers (who are usually lobbying on the same side as the Autoworkers), the NRA, Christian Fundamentalist groups...
Not all of these groups want the government to line their pockets, they have issues that they want addressed and they to influence how they are addressed. That is what democracy is about, and since there is a first ammendment the government is not going to tell us that their views should or should not be listened to