DISQUS

Dennis T Cheung, the problem is not revenue, but spending. It's irresponsible and this is why I said Socialism/Liberalism has to be funded as it can't stand on it's own.

It collapses when they run out of other people's money to fund ever expanding and irresponsbile promises. In this case and every case, "other people's money" is our money and the burden falls on the most productive.

California is a mess because Socialism/Liberalism can only survive if it is funded. Basically, Socialism/Liberalism cannot stand on it's own.

So the whole state will collapse under it's own weight as the liberal lawmakers have made laws that promise tens of billions of dollars of future cash flows to various entitlements without any idea how they will pay for it.

New York is in the same predicament. In New York City, 1% of population pays 50% of the taxes. Despite what the liberals keep pounding into us that the "rich" don't pay their fair share of taxes, even liberals have to admit at some point that this is a problem.

Yes. Exactly. They don't want things "better." They want things "equal." There is a big difference. So the recovery will be slow and dampened by their Socialism.

Ya know, the vast gulf between Left and Right is deeper than most people realize.

Most normal people strive and believe in the American Dream; Modern Liberals hate the American Dream. Instead of supporting ways to help people attain the dream, they work towards tearing it down for those who are close and those that feel they have it.

THINK about how Modern Liberals think about the poor. THEY rarely talk about helping the poor get wealthier; instead, it's almost always that they work to find ways to make the rich more poor and then say the poor are victims of the rich.

THINK about how the Modern Liberals have ruined the inner cities. DECADE after DECADE of liberalism has left the areas a mess. Blacks, especially, were much better off BEFORE the liberals came in with their "programs" and their attacks on the family.

What most people don't get is MODERN LIBERALS don't care about the damage caused by central control. Modern Liberalism is about central control and Modern Liberals hate the individual.

Basically, it's far worse than we think.

The best explanation I have seen for Modern Liberals is the video "HOW MODERN LIBERALS THINK" by Evan Sayet. Evan used to be a writer for Bill Maher. It's very, very good. You'll need some quiet time.

Everyone who has wondered about why things are so polarized, should watch it.
youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

I agree with Christopher Coulter and especially with #3. The terrible journalism and lack of reason in the articles is a killer.

When I look at the comments after many stories, many times there is much more information in the comments than in the original story! I have no idea what they teach in journalism school, but as far as I can see, it's a pitiful joke.

Their answer seems to be to just move further into more liberal delusions and away from providing facts from all sides. Only with enough facts from all sides can a reader use reason to make choices and judge the correct path.

The weekly magazines hire the same type of journalists and editors. Time Magazine has been a pamphlet for a long time. As more and more people learn that newspapers/magazines are useless and as long as the newspapers/magazines refuse to grow up and present all sides, they'll keep losing readers.

I was going to say "sad, but true", but it's not sad that they'll be gone with their current writers/editors.

Malone is right. The whole profession of "journalism" has been destroyed. It's ALL opinion without the benefit of context and opposing facts that help readers learn.

The "journalists" in the mainstream media were willing to shoot the entire profession and themselves in the foot so as to help elect Obama.

I think it's one of the main reasons people are tossing their subscriptions and why TV news audiences have dwindled. Have you picked up a Time lately? It's like a pamphlet. I think US News is going all web.

Two points:

James Robertson@6:14pm is right. Obama would be a disaster towards innovation. Why? Because Modern Liberals/Socialists want everything to be "equal". Success is a big problem for them. That's why they always work to tax success.

I don't know why it's so hard to see, but Obama would be terrible.

Second, Scoble, you said "Whew, glad to hit Wednesday and be done with all of this." We're not going to be done with this.

We're not going to be done with this because the polarization is not the result of "politics". It's the result of Modern Liberals have a different belief system than normal people and it's finally coming out. The media, which is infested with Modern Liberals, used to be able to control the flow of information. The internet changed this and now we are in a culture war.

It's not all doom and gloom. Innovation will help, but there is too much capacity. With the cold winds of Socialism coming in, I wonder if there will be enough buyers? A few thousand programmers innovating isn't enough to support our complex economy - especially when success will be punished.

Some of you will appreciate the talk called "HOW MODERN LIBERALS THINK" by a guy named Evan Sayet. It's a work of genius. You'll need some quiet time, but it is very good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

I think, IN GENRERAL, you are wrong. You are entitled to you ropinion, of course, but you preach "tolerance" and yet you're telling people how to do things. I agree with some points, but it would take a conversation to go through all of the issues.

On the other hand, I will point to one article on the problems of Europe. They are rather severe. I have a friend who was in Belgium for a few years with his family and he couldn't wait to get out.

This article explains why and probably explains why some countries are moving away from what some people call "Modern Liberalism".

http://www.pvv.nl/index.php?option=com_content&...

Here is specifically what I am referring to. Watch "How Modern Liberals Think" by a guy named Evan Sayet. He used to write for Bill Maher. It's very good. You'll need some quiet time (45 minutes). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

And, yes, you are right about McCain, but Obama represents the worst of Modern Liberalism. That video has changed a lot about how I think about "liberals."

Biden reminds me a used car salesman. Palin did good. I don't know if it changes anything. I can't stand the Modern Liberal's Socialism so McCain is the man.

I do have to laugh when Biden talked about regulation (as in Fannie Mae and Wall Street). Congress was the oversight over Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac AND their work to turn the mortgage industry into a social program ala the Community Reinvestment Act was the root cause of this whole mess. It was just funny watching Biden ignore such key facts.

SMS is one thing, but Obama picked the ultimate insider. Another Senator without any real experience. When was the last time either one of them had a job? I don't think Obama has ever held a real job.

He could have done better to pick a governor - someone who has had to balance budgets, deal with employment issues, etc. Senators do nothing more than talk. So, so far we have three Senators in the race.

I'm wondering what Obama is going to do about is "change" slogan. Biden is the farthest thing from change.

Think of RAW files as undeveloped film - undeveloped film that you can process into negatives as many times as you want. The data in a RAW file is light levels for RGB (raw sensor data, not an image). Each pixel is assigned a color, so it's not like each pixel has all of the color information - just one. The pixels are assigned colors so the arrangement is in some sort of matrix.

When you take a picture and the LCD display shows the image, the camera has made some assumptions and has "processed" the bits to make a JPEG. Inside, the RAW file is still there.

So by using RAW, you have much more control because you can "develop" the film in various ways and as many times as you want. Conversely, when you just use JPEG, you are limited to what is assigned (italics that!) to the pixels in the JPEG and, therefore, you only have the shot at a developed image.

For most people, JPEG output is fine because the cameras do a great job of figuring out the appropriate settings (white balance, etc.)

So you don't have to keep RAW images and it doesn't make sense to share them in Flickr, etc. because in order to view them, Flickr has to "develop" each image.

Adding on to what James Robertson said about speech codes on campus as being censorship, hate crimes are an extension. I was confused for years because usually liberals are soft on crime. Then I realized that by supporting hate crimes, they can seem tough on crime and suppress speech at the same time. The idea is to to make an existing crime a "hate crime" and elevate an underlying issue ("the thought") as being criminal. So nowadays, just the thought of anything that has been converted to a hate crime can get you in big trouble. So "hate crimes" are just another tool to suppress speech.

I bring this up because this is another case where certain liberals are using the government to suppress speech.

In Australia’s case, the government should not be getting into the filter business and I wouldn't assume the people behind this are right wingers.

Robert,

As I said, I don't want the government determining what to filter, but I think the government should push for people to think about it and to urge use of the commercial tools out there. I don't want the politically correct speech police or the anti-smoking lefty's on this either.

As for Google and Wikipedia, I have Wikipedia open, Google's parental parameters set for the result list and let bsafe.com deal with the rest. Younger children are very, very impressionable. Just letting the filth come to them can negate and ruin a lot of good parenting. And by not condemning bad behavior, the parent makes it hard to even discuss bad behavior - and all of this is happening when the child needs guidance the most!

In a lot of ways, things are twisted now. People are taught not to judge - so bad behavior is excused and ignored. People ignore the bad behavior and ignore the consequences, but vigorously attack the people talking about the bad behavior. This paragraph is why I'm spending time writing on this subject. To me, it is vitally important for parents to filter content (at various times and amounts) so our kids aren't desensitized to bad behavior.

Watch that video. It starts about 9/11 but the root ideas transfer to many aspects of our culture and I see patterns of what Evan is saying everywhere.

To be clear, I don't want the government to censor, but it's vitally important for parents to censor. There are plenty of tools available that give the parents good control.

I have two kids. Freedom of speech is the wrong way to look at it. When a parent says, "children, you decide what you think is right/good", then the parent is basically giving up their responsibilities because if the parent doesn't do it, then the other influences will teach their kids things. One aspect of raising kids is for the parents to guide their children so they become good and responsible citizens. You don't do this by letting kids roam freely on the internet - until the kids have context.

Just some simple searches in Google can yield nasty results. Since a parent can't watch every action, some outside tools should be used.

I use bsafe.com and it helps tremendously.

What I have to laugh about is all of these people (not those who posted here) who have no trouble for schools to hand out birth control to kids without parental consent but have a big problem with some simple filtering. (Likewise, try to exercise freedom of speech in left leaning institutions and you get shot down and attacked very quickly.)

As for the government deciding what we watch, I have a problem. I think the government can and should educate people on the necessity of using something like bsafe.com, but they shouldn't do the filtering. Likewise, the schools should teach reading, writing, etc. and stay away from handing out birth control without parental consent.

One final point, as a society, we know that certain behaviors are bad. For example, we know that sites that talk about killing others are not good for people, especially kids. We know that porn sites aren't good. It's hurting our kids by ignoring what is bad. In other words, when we won't judge content because we are afraid that we might offend someone, that is wrong; raising our kids is more important.

I wrote more than I thought but some of this comes from Evan Sayet's talk called "How Modern Liberals Think". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
Evan talks about what he calls Modern Liberals and their inability to make proper judgments because of their fear of offending people. If you have some time, watch it. See the Q&A at the end of the video, too.

I'm not sure if you or anybody reads these at this point in time, but here is more:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/a-thank-you...

That Hometown Baghdad site is and was bogus. You can see as things have improved, there have been fewer posts from the PR people who set it up.

Yes, very cool. At first I sort of wrote it off, but I have been thinking about the perfect way to present pictures lately and this is a step in the right direction. The typical tools in Adobe's Elements and Lightroom produce results that seem too constraining as it takes too long for ythe user to "move around." I don't think the word "navigate" is right because you don't always know where you are going. While this collage tool is linear, hopefully the balloons can be used to hyperlink within the collage too.

I think the key point is the speed that the user can move around.

Neil, caring for European culture is not racist. Read up on what is happening. Just today, I heard that France is requiring more tests for immigrants - with the idea of filtering people out.

The US has the best record of assimilating people – the melting pot. Europe’s record isn’t as good and they have the added burden of birth rates that are well below the replacement level. The multiculturalists push a mosaic, which will ultimately destroy the normal culture. This birthrate problem will cause European countries to shrink. (Just do a search on “Europe” and “birthrate” and you’ll see that side of it.) Since multiculturalists don’t like the melting pot, the Europe that Europeans know (and we know) will change dramatically. One change is the inclusion of sharia law, which will start to supersede normal laws until the normal laws are not operative . In many ways sharia law is opposed to western law. The multiculturalists are afraid to say anything, but I can’t see anything wrong with supporting one’s culture. So, I’m not being racist when I say it’s okay to support one’s culture by limiting immigration and requiring immigrants to adhere to the rules and assimilate. I don’t know where you are from, but I suspect many readers are from California and I doubt sharia law will be welcomed in California.

To me, it’s sort of funny to watch liberals embrace multiculturalism when, at some level, they must know that sharia law will outlaw them. Follow the politics in Europe. In many ways, things are moving to the right. (No EU Constitution, various elections, etc.)

What is happening in the Mideast is part of the issue too. So please get over the racist idea. Here’s a link to a discussion on “The Collapse of Europe”. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/687cbfbc-0d3e-...

There is a lot going on in the world and all the Democrats can come up with is inventing a scandal about eight US Attorneys as a way to get at Bush.

Robert, I did watch the video and it was well done - professionally done and I wonder who funded them all. It was so well done that the story is about the people behind it and their intentions more than the story itself.

Please watch this and you can see my skepticism over the intentions of the people behind "Hometown Baghdad". http://www.seconddraft.org/streaming/pallywood.wmv

The difference is Pallywood shows how the media is manipulated and "Hometown Baghdad" is a polished form of propaganda.

"Hometown Baghdad" is designed to sway opinion. (Even the name and some of the images that look like Southern California/Western US are designed to connect with skeptical American viewers.) You have to assume there are hundreds of stories like this and, as we know, there are thousands who died horrible deaths under Sadaam. And many are dying in Gaza and Lebanon now because of Iranian and Syrian work.

The people behind this do it to sway opinion against the war and to undermine our efforts.

What is so sad is they ignore the issues around it and they have no plan for helping the people. Just leaving creates many other problems.

The whole Middle East has to be put into context. Just throwing up our hands and leaving is really a kindergarten response to a complicated set of problems.

Finally, I don’t mean to be difficult, but I am passionate about these issues and the media does a horrible job of putting things into context and trying to hide their biases. We all suffer because we have been stuck with too much propaganda and not enough context to help us make decisions. You have to really go deep to sort through everything in order to make decisions on what is right and wrong and how to plan for the future. p.s. Congratulations on the news of the baby!

You asked "Why are we still in Iraq? What are we solving?" Try to look at the bigger picture - Militant Islam hasn't liked us for many years. Is it Bush? No, it's our culture. And, it's our freedom they don't like. This isn't a "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" because, by definition, they are against freedom.

As JFK said in his inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more."

And it's not only about Iraq. Even though the liberals ignore the rest of the middle east, the real issue is the whole of the middle east. And Europe. Look up the birth rates in Europe these days. Europe is going downhill fast. It's a hollowing out of their culture. The number one name for babies in England now is Mohammed. (Thomas was number one.)

Bush said after 9/11 that this war will be like no other. (The liberals keep trying to tell us that this is like every other war and that we’re the bad guys.) Bush also said he was going after terrorism. A big part of terrorism is Iran. Look at Hezbollah in Syria – funded by Iran (despite what Nancy Pelosi says). Look at Hamas (and what is happening as we speak in Palestine – funded by Iran (despite the fact that the liberals ignore this.) Look at the Taliban – funded by Iran.

The idea is to get some semblance of order in Iraq and the middle east. We have already seen Libya give up their nuke program.

The war is hard enough by itself. But we have liberals who undermine our attempts to address these problems. All of this “the rest of the world hates us”, “the US is evil”, the troops are bad (Abu Ghraib), trying to stop terrorism here by surveillance, CIA operations, etc., etc, is all about undermining our efforts. We have the war to deal with and a strange domestic enemy whose rhetoric is exactly like our enemy.

We have it good here because, as a country, we have worked for it and many, many people have died. As JFK said, we want others to benefit from this. That’s why we fight.

You said "If defeatocrats could only understand this true passion and patriotism, they might not have withheld funds for the troops for more than 100 days just to make a political statement."

They don't want to understand true patriotism because they think it is racist! This is why we can never convince them and why logic bounces off them. Their philosophy is very screwy.

Evan Sayet explains it very well here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

This is a must watch talk! It's not short and I've watched parts of it a dozen times now. It's that good.

It's not so simple. If you have kids, there are all sorts of things that you naturally do to guide and protect them. All of this is done at various ages, levels of maturity, etc. To say that the entire internet should be open to kids of all ages is ridiculous and flies in the face of parents' and schools' responsibilities.

How can you teach kids to make good decisions if you can't exercise tools to help out? Banning/delaying things like MySpace is just another tool.

Concerning some parents that allow their kids to do "most everything" so they can sort it out themselves, I think this is a crock of sh*t. Why is a crock of sh*t? Because kids are very impressionable and I mean “very.” So if the parent isn't doing the teaching, then the parent has decided that it's okay for others to do the teaching because kids suck everything in without a strong enough framework to decide what is right and wrong. So then, the parents wonders why their kids get screwed up. Another thing is kids may say they hate tough parents, but people tend to respect and highlight the people who were tough role models when they were children. You laugh at the uncle or teacher that let you get away with “murder,” but you thank the ones that pushed you.
People have outlawed smoking in most places, right? Why don't we give kids cigarettes and let them decide? We don’t and, at every turn, the kids are smothered with anti-smoking messages. For some reason, many people can’t see that other forms of “input” can be equally or more destructive.

So anyways, for this parent at least, most of the comments here don’t seem right.

Billg:
You're funny! The irony is comical. You rattled off a huge chunk of the econonmy and somehow think that the millions that work in those industries control us. I can tell you don't like big organizations, but I suspect that you would have no trouble moving those industries to government control - which is really one huge, non-competitive, corrupt organization (without oversight) that would be a much bigger threat to our lives!
I love you lefty's!