OT - 10 steps to fascist police state

[Private]

Well written and thought provoking IMHO

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

[Jim Logajan]

"Private" > wrote:
> Well written and thought provoking IMHO

Sorry, no mention of piloting or aviation. If you want well written and
thought provoking, browse here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

[Private]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Private" > wrote:
>> Well written and thought provoking IMHO
>
> Sorry, no mention of piloting or aviation. If you want well written and
> thought provoking, browse here:
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

Neat looking site, thanks for the link.

I read this group because of the (usually) intelligent and thoughtful people
who post here. IMHO, The occasional OT threads here are much better than
any on the political groups and largely lack the rudeness and ignorance. We
occasionally discuss politics in our real hangar flying and I similarly
appreciate the diversity of opinions raised here.

Happy landings,

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:42:40 GMT, "Private" > wrote
in <AHoXh.123158$aG1.84634@pd7urf3no>:

>Well written and thought provoking IMHO
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
>

This motion picture will change your life:

Orwell Rolls in his Grave

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMd7Oixdh2A
http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Orwell-Rolls-Grave-Charles-Lewis/dp/B0008237AA
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410407/

The chilling documentary film "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" examines the
relationship between the media, corporate America, and government. In
a country where the "top 1% control 90% of the wealth", the film
argues that the media system is nothing but a "subsidiary of corporate
America." It's a stunning fact that the media received 1 billion
dollars in campaign ads for the last election. Large corporations own
the television networks, and the sheer number of stations/channels
available gives the public the "illusion of choice." Yes, there are
tons of channels to chose from, but this "ostensible diversity
conceals an actual uniformity."

"Orwell Rolls in his Grave" gives the big picture of the media system
in America and asks why some important stories are not covered by the
mainstream news and remain invisible. Other stories appear and sink
rapidly--while some stories are repeated over and over. Using
references to George Orwell's masterpiece "1984" the filmmakers
establish the idea that "1984" isn't just fiction any more. The
premise of Orwell's novel is that language is redesigned and history
rewritten to control people's thoughts. According to the filmmakers,
the American media system at best--filters the news to the populace,
and at worst--is the mouthpiece of its corporate and political
masters.

This information packed film examines the ties between media,
corporations and the government using facts and figures--as well as a
number of news stories. The film focuses on media coverage of the 2000
election, and the juicy detail of the purging of Florida voter rolls.
According to the filmmakers, when journalist Greg Palast broke the
story for the BBC, major American networks declined to explore the
story further as Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, and naturally the
focal point of any investigation into Florida voting, debunked the
story. The filmmakers point out the outrageousness of the squashing of
a story simply because the person being investigated says it's not
true. This section of the film also gives details regarding the
Supreme Court Justices who voted to terminate the Florida recount.
It's interesting to see who voted against the recount, and that two
children of these justices then got positions in the Bush
administration. Is a quid pro quo system at work behind the
scenes--are deals made, jobs given, contracts awarded to 'friends' of
the administration? Well watch the film and decide for yourself.

The film includes interviews with a number of experts on
media--including Charles Lewis, the director of the Centre for Public
Integrity. Lewis has an engaging candor that is refreshing and
genuine. Michael Moore appears in a few brief clips from a speech he
gave, and there's also some clips from George Bush. Witty and
entertaining Vermont congressman, Bernie Sanders weighs in, and there
are also interviews with Danny Schecter, director of "Weapons of Mass
Deception", and legal expert Vincent Bugliosi. The film winds up with
information on the FCC (Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell is head of
the FCC), lobbyists, corporate watchdogs and regulators. For a
behind-the-scenes look at the structure of the American media system,
I recommend "Orwell Rolls in His Grave." The information here is at
once enlightening, chilling and downright depressing--displacedhuman

[Larry Dighera]

Watch the whole movie Orwell Rolls in his Grave here free:
http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/contentviewer.php?content_id=1166



On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:37:49 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:42:40 GMT, "Private" > wrote
>in <AHoXh.123158$aG1.84634@pd7urf3no>:
>
>>Well written and thought provoking IMHO
>>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
>>
>
>This motion picture will change your life:
>
>Orwell Rolls in his Grave
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMd7Oixdh2A
>http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/
>http://www.amazon.com/Orwell-Rolls-Grave-Charles-Lewis/dp/B0008237AA
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410407/
>
>The chilling documentary film "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" examines the
>relationship between the media, corporate America, and government. In
>a country where the "top 1% control 90% of the wealth", the film
>argues that the media system is nothing but a "subsidiary of corporate
>America." It's a stunning fact that the media received 1 billion
>dollars in campaign ads for the last election. Large corporations own
>the television networks, and the sheer number of stations/channels
>available gives the public the "illusion of choice." Yes, there are
>tons of channels to chose from, but this "ostensible diversity
>conceals an actual uniformity."
>
>"Orwell Rolls in his Grave" gives the big picture of the media system
>in America and asks why some important stories are not covered by the
>mainstream news and remain invisible. Other stories appear and sink
>rapidly--while some stories are repeated over and over. Using
>references to George Orwell's masterpiece "1984" the filmmakers
>establish the idea that "1984" isn't just fiction any more. The
>premise of Orwell's novel is that language is redesigned and history
>rewritten to control people's thoughts. According to the filmmakers,
>the American media system at best--filters the news to the populace,
>and at worst--is the mouthpiece of its corporate and political
>masters.
>
>This information packed film examines the ties between media,
>corporations and the government using facts and figures--as well as a
>number of news stories. The film focuses on media coverage of the 2000
>election, and the juicy detail of the purging of Florida voter rolls.
>According to the filmmakers, when journalist Greg Palast broke the
>story for the BBC, major American networks declined to explore the
>story further as Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, and naturally the
>focal point of any investigation into Florida voting, debunked the
>story. The filmmakers point out the outrageousness of the squashing of
>a story simply because the person being investigated says it's not
>true. This section of the film also gives details regarding the
>Supreme Court Justices who voted to terminate the Florida recount.
>It's interesting to see who voted against the recount, and that two
>children of these justices then got positions in the Bush
>administration. Is a quid pro quo system at work behind the
>scenes--are deals made, jobs given, contracts awarded to 'friends' of
>the administration? Well watch the film and decide for yourself.
>
>The film includes interviews with a number of experts on
>media--including Charles Lewis, the director of the Centre for Public
>Integrity. Lewis has an engaging candor that is refreshing and
>genuine. Michael Moore appears in a few brief clips from a speech he
>gave, and there's also some clips from George Bush. Witty and
>entertaining Vermont congressman, Bernie Sanders weighs in, and there
>are also interviews with Danny Schecter, director of "Weapons of Mass
>Deception", and legal expert Vincent Bugliosi. The film winds up with
>information on the FCC (Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell is head of
>the FCC), lobbyists, corporate watchdogs and regulators. For a
>behind-the-scenes look at the structure of the American media system,
>I recommend "Orwell Rolls in His Grave." The information here is at
>once enlightening, chilling and downright depressing--displacedhuman

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> The chilling documentary film "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" examines the
> relationship between the media, corporate America, and government. In
> a country where the "top 1% control 90% of the wealth", ... SNIP

And that is a BS number.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few
hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of
all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional,
and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people
owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80%
(wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of
households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present
further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at
New York University (2004).

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>And that is a BS number.

Control != Own

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> And that is a BS number.
>
> Control != Own

So Larry, what is your definition of "Control" that can boost the number
from 33.4% to 90%?

[gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>In a country where the "top 1% control 90% of the wealth", the film
> argues that the media system is nothing but a "subsidiary of corporate
> America."

Dead-on truth.

All movies, music and other entertainment is calculated based on not how
good or socially useful it is, but on how much money it makes the parent
corporation. (ie Sony.)

-chris

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:

>>> And that is a BS number.
>>
>> Control != Own
>
> So Larry, what is your definition of "Control" that can boost the number
> from 33.4% to 90%?

A friend of mine who is a Statistics instructor regularly dismantles figures
such as these. The US economic system is too complex to say offhand "this
percentage owns this percentage"; it depends on how you derive your data and
how it is organized. By and large, though, corporations are run by people
like Carly Fiorina and folks who get paid hundreds of millions of dollars
despite destroying companies and costing hundreds or thousands of jobs, and
the average working-class Joe Commercial Pilot, cop, truck driver, support
technician, electrician, assembly line operator...the people who ACTUALLY
MAKE THE CORPORATION RUN...make a pittance of what these people award
themselves as hiring or firing bonuses.

-c

[Jose]

> All movies, music and other entertainment is calculated based on not how
> good or socially useful it is, but on how much money it makes the parent
> corporation. (ie Sony.)

Do you really want movies to be made based on their "societal
usefulness"? Who gets to decide what is "societaly useful"? Who
decides what kind of society we should have?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-24 07:42:40 -0700, "Private" > said:

> Well written and thought provoking IMHO
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

Yeah, yeah. This sort of tripe gets published about every politician
since Hitler. Before Hitler, you just called your political opponents
drunkards, sexual perverts, anti-Christs, and aristocrats. Both Thomas
Jefferson and King George III were compared to Nero by their political
enemies. Surely there must be some sort of Godwin's law for newspaper
editorials.

You could have said the same thing about the Clinton administration and
Janet Reno (in fact I did, largely in jest -- but one must be vigilant
about one's civil rights). Remember the complaints about "jack-booted
thugs?" And every President, Prime Minister, attorney general, and
similar person before that draws similar comparisons. The faces change,
the vitriol stays the same.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> All movies, music and other entertainment is calculated based on not how
>> good or socially useful it is, but on how much money it makes the parent
>> corporation. (ie Sony.)
>
> Do you really want movies to be made based on their "societal
> usefulness"?

"societal"?

Not always, but, should we stick with the status quo, where a bleach-blonde
ex-stripper predictably ODs and gets more media time than all of the
soldiers killed overseas this month combined? Should stick with the status
quo where pictures of Cho draw viewers, which equates to higher ratings,
which equates to higher ad revenue, which equates to higher salaries for the
executives? That way, executives, advertisers and investors can make tons
of money off of things like Cho, Columbine, 9/11 and Anna Nicole Smith. I
don't happen to find "motherfu*cking snakes on a motherf*cking plane" likely
to promote intellectual stimulation, but it sure made a handful of people a
crapload of money and robbed quite a few million of $7.50 or whatever.

> Who gets to decide what is "societaly useful"?

Movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are genuinely bad would
be better than Snoop Dog's Girls Gone Wild extravaganza and all its
miscellaneous internet-porn spinoffs. We put garbage into society, we get
garbage out of society. It's true that society buys into it but the only
reason it's there is because somebody figured out that if you get a
weed-smoking rap star and some naked underage drunk girls, you can make
millions.

> Who decides what kind of society we should have?

In reality? The people who make celebrity cult heroes out of Michael
Jackson and Tupac, who hire only anorexic coke whores for their magazine
covers, who give record contacts to people like Tupac and Brittney Spears,
who think that what we -really- need is another Friday the 13th movie, and
who market candy and soft drinks to children, gangster rap and Grand Theft
Auto games to teenagers, and ad-driven political hate radio to adults.

In a perfect world, WE decide what kind of society we should have, not a
handful of top-level media conglomerates such as Sony, Disney, Entercomm,
etc.

-c
holy crap... I'm a rock musician; I can't believe I'm saying all this
stuff. But there it is...

[Jose]

>> Do you really want movies to be made based on their "societal
>> usefulness"?
> ...Should stick with the status
> quo where pictures of Cho draw viewers, which equates to higher ratings,
> which equates to higher ad revenue, which equates to higher salaries for the
> executives?...

I don't even know (or care) who "Cho" is. Why? Because I choose what I
watch. Do you? If you don't, that is a problem. But if you do, then
why do you want to choose what =I= and everybody else watches?

> Movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are genuinely bad would
> be better than Snoop Dog's Girls Gone Wild extravaganza...

Oh. That's what you want us all to watch? What if we don't =want= to
fill our brains with purple dinosaurs? You want to make movies about
how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are genuinely bad, go make them.
It's not all that hard. The hard part is forcing people to sit
through them.

>>Who decides what kind of society we should have?
> In reality? The people who make celebrity cult heroes out of Michael
> Jackson and Tupac,

No, that misses the mark. In rality, =each= of us, acting individually,
decide what kind of society we have. That includes a society in which
we are permitted to eat red meat and soft boiled eggs, a society in
which we are permitted to jump out of perfectly good airplanes, in which
we are allowed to swim naked in our own back yards, in which we are
allowed to raise our children the way =we= see fit, and not by vote of
the Grand Canonical Ensemble.

If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV. But if you
don't like what your neighbor watches, why is it your business?

And what if your neighbor doesn't like what =you= watch?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[vincent p. norris]

>The Wealth Distribution
>In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few
>hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of
>all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional,
>and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people
>owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80%
>(wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of
>households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present
>further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at
>New York University (2004).

According to the Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2004-2005,

Table 672,

The Top 5 percent of families got 20.8% of aggregate income

Top fifth of families got 47.6 percent
Next fifth got 23.0

So top 40 percent got 70.6 percent

The Lowest fifth of families got 4.2 percent of aggregate income
Next fifth got 9.7 percent


According to the Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Board,

Richest 1 percent of families own 39.1 percent of wealth
Next 4 percent own 22.3 percent
Next 5 percent own 11.4 percent
Next 10 percent own 11.5 percent;

So the top 20 percent owned 84.3 percent in 1997

Bottom 40 percent owns less than 1 percent

vince norris

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-24 16:23:53 -0700, "gatt" > said:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>>> And that is a BS number.
>>>
>>> Control != Own
>>
>> So Larry, what is your definition of "Control" that can boost the number
>> from 33.4% to 90%?
>
> A friend of mine who is a Statistics instructor regularly dismantles figures
> such as these. The US economic system is too complex to say offhand "this
> percentage owns this percentage"; it depends on how you derive your data and
> how it is organized. By and large, though, corporations are run by people
> like Carly Fiorina and folks who get paid hundreds of millions of dollars
> despite destroying companies and costing hundreds or thousands of jobs, and
> the average working-class Joe Commercial Pilot, cop, truck driver, support
> technician, electrician, assembly line operator...the people who ACTUALLY
> MAKE THE CORPORATION RUN...make a pittance of what these people award
> themselves as hiring or firing bonuses.
>
> -c

Of course. If the facts don't agree with the original premise, declare
the statistics to be meaningless and arbitrary.

The fact is, 1% of Americans do not control 90% of the wealth unless
you are a rabid conspiracy theorist. Then you just assume everything is
controlled by the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission or Bavarian
Bankers or Halliburton or what-have-you. Since no one can prove you
wrong, you must be right, eh?

Of course, if you are going to do that you have to betray every
principle that liberalism supposedly stands for.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> This motion picture will change your life:

Remember this post the next time you start complaining about off-topic
threads here... :)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose >
wrote in >:

>If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.

And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?

[Steve Foley]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007042422113016807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...

> Of course. If the facts don't agree with the original premise, declare the
> statistics to be meaningless and arbitrary.
>
> The fact is, 1% of Americans do not control 90% of the wealth unless you
> are a rabid conspiracy theorist.

The fact is that I control 100% of the wealth.

If it isn't mine, it doesn't count.

[Jose]

>>If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
> And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
> negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?

Then watch the news on a different channel.

Actually, the problem isn't so much that the news reporting is
"controlled" by media companies, but rather, that news reporting is
under the entertainment division and not the journalism division.

Who wants to watch real news and actually analyze current events? Yes,
those kinds of people are in the minority. Most people =prefer= to
watch a white SUV drive down the highway.

=That= is the problem. It is us, collectively, who decide what is
profitable to the media companies. I agree that in doing so, we are
handing over the keys to our brains, and at some point it will be too
late. But the power was not siezed by them, it was given to them.
Whoever the "them" turns out to be.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>>> And that is a BS number.
>>>
>>> Control != Own
>>
>> So Larry, what is your definition of "Control" that can boost the number
>> from 33.4% to 90%?
>
> A friend of mine who is a Statistics instructor regularly dismantles
> figures such as these. The US economic system is too complex to say
> offhand "this percentage owns this percentage"; it depends on how you
> derive your data and how it is organized. By and large, though,
> corporations are run by people like Carly Fiorina and folks who get paid
> hundreds of millions of dollars

Paid that much by whom?

> despite destroying companies and costing hundreds or thousands of jobs,

And that's why our economy is outstripping ever other country in the world,
including China (10% grwoth from nothing is still not much), India (same)...

Further, that's somewhat the same logic that one minority criminal is
indicitive off all that same group.

> and the average working-class Joe Commercial Pilot, cop, truck driver,
> support technician, electrician, assembly line operator...the people who
> ACTUALLY MAKE THE CORPORATION RUN...make a pittance of what these people
> award themselves as hiring or firing bonuses.

How much responsibility does the truck driver have (a $50K rig) versus the
responsibility that a CEO does (a 50-200 $$BILLION corporation).

I'll agree there are quite a few overpaid/incompetent exec's, just like
there are far more overpaid entertainers and athletes.

Maybe if you made more of a career and less of whining and barfing back
media drivel, you might be doing "really well".

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007042422113016807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-04-24 16:23:53 -0700, "gatt" > said:
>>
>> -c
>
> Of course. If the facts don't agree with the original premise, declare the
> statistics to be meaningless and arbitrary.
>
> The fact is, 1% of Americans do not control 90% of the wealth unless you
> are a rabid conspiracy theorist. Then you just assume everything is
> controlled by the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission or Bavarian
> Bankers or Halliburton or what-have-you. Since no one can prove you wrong,
> you must be right, eh?


Example: One CEO "controls" a $100 Billion corporation that has 100,000
shareholders.

See how easy that is? Of course, that would take just a smidge of brainpower
and one's "feelings" would get hurt.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007042422113016807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>
>> Of course. If the facts don't agree with the original premise, declare
>> the statistics to be meaningless and arbitrary.
>>
>> The fact is, 1% of Americans do not control 90% of the wealth unless you
>> are a rabid conspiracy theorist.
>
> The fact is that I control 100% of the wealth.
>

I control the vertical, I control the horizontal....

[Don Tabor]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:42:40 GMT, "Private" >
wrote:

>Well written and thought provoking IMHO

If laughing so hard that I fall of my chair counts as thought
provoking, OK.

The rise of Fascism relies on people having the notion that their own
prosperity, power and security derive from being a member of some
collective. Individualism, as expressed by capitalism, is the absolute
antidote to fascism.

So, if you want to avoid a fascist state, then adopt the Gates, and
the Jobs, and the CEO's who pull in mega salaries as your heroes. So
long as the individual is free excel, and admired rather than envied
when he gets rich, we will not have fascism here.

It is when equality becomes more our goal than excellence that the
jackboots draw near.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Chris]

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:42:40 GMT, "Private" >
> wrote:
>
>>Well written and thought provoking IMHO
>
> If laughing so hard that I fall of my chair counts as thought
> provoking, OK.
>
> The rise of Fascism relies on people having the notion that their own
> prosperity, power and security derive from being a member of some
> collective. Individualism, as expressed by capitalism, is the absolute
> antidote to fascism.
>
Funny how communism and fascism seem so similar.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-25 06:35:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> said:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007042422113016807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2007-04-24 16:23:53 -0700, "gatt" > said:
>>>
>>> -c
>>
>> Of course. If the facts don't agree with the original premise, declare the
>> statistics to be meaningless and arbitrary.
>>
>> The fact is, 1% of Americans do not control 90% of the wealth unless you
>> are a rabid conspiracy theorist. Then you just assume everything is
>> controlled by the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission or Bavarian
>> Bankers or Halliburton or what-have-you. Since no one can prove you wrong,
>> you must be right, eh?
>
>
> Example: One CEO "controls" a $100 Billion corporation that has 100,000
> shareholders.
>
> See how easy that is? Of course, that would take just a smidge of brainpower
> and one's "feelings" would get hurt.

The trouble with that is the assumption that the country's wealth is
tied up in large corporations. It is not. And, as anyone who DOES work
for a large corporation knows, the CEO is rarely in 'control.'

Comrade, it may be useful to lie to the masses about the control that
the globe-trotting capitalist dogs exert over their lives, but we must
keep our eyes open and not be deceived by our own propaganda. Let the
populist pols do that. The bourgeousie control the bulk of the wealth,
but they must never know that or they will never join the people's
revolution. Encourage them to believe they are fighting corporate
tyranny. When they are ready, we will give them knives and they will
cut their own throats.

One word of warning about associating too closely with Larry Dighera. I
am preparing to denounce the insufferable Trotskyite pig as a bourgeous
reactionary. The man is a socialist, not a true believer. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-25 11:24:36 -0700, "Chris" > said:

>
> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:42:40 GMT, "Private" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well written and thought provoking IMHO
>>
>> If laughing so hard that I fall of my chair counts as thought
>> provoking, OK.
>>
>> The rise of Fascism relies on people having the notion that their own
>> prosperity, power and security derive from being a member of some
>> collective. Individualism, as expressed by capitalism, is the absolute
>> antidote to fascism.
>>
> Funny how communism and fascism seem so similar.

They seem similar because they are the same. Stalin was a great admirer
of Hitler and copied his methods. They all end up the same: state
control of production, violent silencing of dissidents, the leaders
assuming that they are the sole representatives of the collective will
and that all dissent and failure must be the result of sabotage by
criminals.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Gig 601XL Builder]

C J Campbell wrote:
>

> One word of warning about associating too closely with Larry Dighera.
> I am preparing to denounce the insufferable Trotskyite pig as a
> bourgeous reactionary. The man is a socialist, not a true believer. :-
> )


You owe me a new keyboard C J

[Jim Fisher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>>If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
>
> And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
> negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?


Then you won't know about it and will continue to live in blissfull ignorance. On the other hand, if you DO know "the news media" is conspiring against you then you already know where to go to get the "real" news.

--
Jim Fisher
(Who has lived with the "liberal news media"for 45 years and is still not brainwashed)

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose >
: wrote in >:
:
: >If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
:
: And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
: negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?
:


PBS?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:08:00 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>:

>PBS?

International short wave broadcasts?

[Erik]

Blueskies wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> : On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose >
> : wrote in >:
> :
> : >If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
> :
> : And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
> : negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?
> :
>
>
> PBS?
>
>

PBS rocks. I was up until 2am last night for this thing
they did on Enron.

PBS and dailyrotten. Bread and butter.

[vincent p. norris]

>> The Wealth Distribution
>> In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few
>> hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of
>> all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional,
>> and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people
>> owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80%
>> (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of
>> households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present
>> further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at
>> New York University (2004).
>
>Assuming these states have some semblance to reality (which is questionable)......

Even if the numbers are not precisely correct, the picture painted
above most assuredly has a "semblance to realilty." No one who knows
anything about economics would dispute the statement that "In the
United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few
hands."

>This not-so-thinly-veiled message of support for socialism.......

That's silly! Is the Department of Commerce of the United States,
currently under the control of a Republican Administration, a
supporter of socialism?

Do you even know what the word "socialism" means?

vince norris

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Erik" > wrote

> PBS rocks. I was up until 2am last night for this thing
> they did on Enron.
>
> PBS and dailyrotten. Bread and butter.

It is always good to hear thing from a different viewpoint, but if you think
PBS is a neutral source, think again.

Far from it.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> but if you think
> PBS is a neutral source, think again.
>
> Far from it.

Has there ever been a neutral source?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tabor]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:24:36 +0100, "Chris" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:42:40 GMT, "Private" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Well written and thought provoking IMHO
>>
>> If laughing so hard that I fall of my chair counts as thought
>> provoking, OK.
>>
>> The rise of Fascism relies on people having the notion that their own
>> prosperity, power and security derive from being a member of some
>> collective. Individualism, as expressed by capitalism, is the absolute
>> antidote to fascism.
>>
>Funny how communism and fascism seem so similar.

There's nothing funny about it.

The left wing press and academia have engaged in a 50 year effort to
link fascism to the political right, and too many people with a
limited understanding of history have accepted that.

Yet there are no instances of a capitalist country becoming fascist
without first drifting to collectivism and class envy.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
>>
>> And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
>> negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?
>
>
> Then you won't know about it and will continue to live in blissfull
> ignorance. On the other hand, if you DO know "the news media" is
> conspiring against you then you already know where to go to get the "real"
> news.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
> (Who has lived with the "liberal news media"for 45 years and is still not
> brainwashed)

They told me I was gullible...and I believed them.

[Denny]

My daughter is in the upper 1% income bracket that some of you seem to
despise... She does not watch the news on TV or read the front section
of the newspaper - if you were to ask her she would not have a clue
who Cho is/was, and could not care less if she tried... She does not
watch Rosie, Idol, or Dancing with the Stars, or other TV garbage...
She listens to CD music or radio stations (no talk radio), watches
movies as she chooses, reads magazines and books, works on her
projects, cooks gourmet meals, and works hard at her profession...
We have discussed this and she says in the past listening/watching/
reading the garbage the media passes off as news/entertainment only
made her feel 'crazy'... She is much happier without knowing who
killed who yesterday; and being that it is not anything she can
change, why abuse her psyche and emotions by watching it...

Let me challenge you to every day for a week to skim the news on the
BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Pravda, ABC, NBC, Google, and
Yahoo.. Really pump up on the news (you are going to find that they
all run much of the same stories, even Pravda is hard to tell from any
other paper at times) At the end of seven days of doing this ask
yourself how you feel; good?

Then spend a week and do not do any of those things; read books, get
an audio CD course on Spanish/French or whatever, go for a walk after
supper instead of watching the news, etc... At the end of seven days
ask yourself how you feel...

Let me know how it comes out...

denny

[Private]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> They told me I was gullible...and I believed them.
>

Thanks for my laugh of the day!

Here is the one from yesterday.

'It would be wrong to impeach Cheney, because then Bush would be president.'

and this cartoon strip about Internet argument
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html

[Don Tabor]

On 26 Apr 2007 07:49:16 -0700, Denny > wrote:

>My daughter is in the upper 1% income bracket that some of you seem to
>despise... She does not watch the news on TV or read the front section
>of the newspaper - if you were to ask her she would not have a clue
>who Cho is/was, and could not care less if she tried... She does not
>watch Rosie, Idol, or Dancing with the Stars, or other TV garbage...
>She listens to CD music or radio stations (no talk radio), watches
>movies as she chooses, reads magazines and books, works on her
>projects, cooks gourmet meals, and works hard at her profession...
>We have discussed this and she says in the past listening/watching/
>reading the garbage the media passes off as news/entertainment only
>made her feel 'crazy'... She is much happier without knowing who
>killed who yesterday; and being that it is not anything she can
>change, why abuse her psyche and emotions by watching it...
>
>Let me challenge you to every day for a week to skim the news on the
>BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Pravda, ABC, NBC, Google, and
>Yahoo.. Really pump up on the news (you are going to find that they
>all run much of the same stories, even Pravda is hard to tell from any
>other paper at times) At the end of seven days of doing this ask
>yourself how you feel; good?
>
>Then spend a week and do not do any of those things; read books, get
>an audio CD course on Spanish/French or whatever, go for a walk after
>supper instead of watching the news, etc... At the end of seven days
>ask yourself how you feel...
>
>Let me know how it comes out...

Or you could stick your head in the sand and hope that those of us who
are paying attention will take care of you.

[Steve Foley]

Is that warm, dry sand, or cold, wet sand?

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...

> Or you could stick your head in the sand and hope that those of us who
> are paying attention will take care of you.
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Private" > wrote in message
news:XO3Yh.131241$6m4.67060@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> They told me I was gullible...and I believed them.
>>
>
> Thanks for my laugh of the day!
>
> Here is the one from yesterday.
>
> 'It would be wrong to impeach Cheney, because then Bush would be
> president.'
>
> and this cartoon strip about Internet argument
> http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
>
Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> Is that warm, dry sand, or cold, wet sand?
>
> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Or you could stick your head in the sand and hope that those of us who
>> are paying attention will take care of you.

The funniest stuff I saw on TV the past few years (this was at relatives
home,we pulled our cable in 2000) was Jay Leno asking questions to people on
the street.

Example!

Leno: "Who is the Vice President?"
Clueless ditz: "Um...I dunno".

I'm sure Ms. Clueless, though, has an opinion.

Thing is, it was over and over. And other surveys bear him out.

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...

>> quo where pictures of Cho draw viewers, which equates to higher ratings,
>> which equates to higher ad revenue, which equates to higher salaries for
>> the executives?...
>
> I don't even know (or care) who "Cho" is. Why? Because I choose what I
> watch. Do you? If you don't, that is a problem. But if you do, then why
> do you want to choose what =I= and everybody else watches?

Settle down. Nobody said anything about choosing for you.

> You want to make movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are
> genuinely bad, go make them. It's not all that hard.

LOL! Hell, movie making is cheap and easy, isn't it?


-c

[gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>>If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
>
> And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
> negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?

Well said. If Enron had owned CNN...

-c

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .

>Most people =prefer= to watch a white SUV drive down the highway.
>
> =That= is the problem. It is us, collectively, who decide what is
> profitable to the media companies. I agree that in doing so, we are
> handing over the keys to our brains, and at some point it will be too
> late. But the power was not siezed by them, it was given to them.

That was pretty much my point. WE are society, not the corporations who
control the media.

But millions of people have already "handed over the keys to their brains"
and, the fact is, showing the faces of murderers prompts copycats. There
would be no "copycat killers" if they weren't handed a role model by
somebody selling them ads.

Earlier this month a kid in Oregon fired a rifle into a high school. Later
he said he was inspired by a documentary about Columbine. That's what I'm
getting at: Kids who idolize symbolic antiheroes will emulate them to
capture the same 15 minutes of fame.

http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2007/04/gresham-copycatted-columbine.html

-c

[gatt]

"Erik" > wrote in message
...

> PBS rocks. I was up until 2am last night for this thing
> they did on Enron.


That was INSANE!

I loved the question that Ken Lay got during the employee Q&A: "Mr. Lay:
Are you on crack? ...."

They interviewed a PGE field electrician who said that his $350,000
retirement fund was cashed out at $1200 or whatever was in Gresham. That
office was right down the road. I remember when Portland energy rates
skyrocketted to cover California's power shortage, all because of Enron.
Then Enron screwed PGE employees too. Used to be a great company.


-c

[Jose]

>>I don't even know (or care) who "Cho" is. Why? Because I choose what I
>> watch. Do you? If you don't, that is a problem. But if you do, then why
>> do you want to choose what =I= and everybody else watches?
> Settle down. Nobody said anything about choosing for you.

Uh.... that's not quite the case. You said:
> Should stick with the status quo where pictures of Cho
> draw viewers, which equates to higher ratings...

The status quo comes about because we, collectively, are choosing it.
Further you state:

> Movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are genuinely bad would
> be better than Snoop Dog's Girls Gone Wild extravaganza and all its
> miscellaneous internet-porn spinoffs...

While that is a neutral statement of opinion, its relevance only comes
from the fact that we, collectively, are choosing differently from this
opinion. The post implies this is a Bad Thing. By implication, you
would have us choose differently, or be chosen for differently.

>> You want to make movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are
>> genuinely bad, go make them. It's not all that hard.
>
> LOL! Hell, movie making is cheap and easy, isn't it?

1: Yes, it is. Look at YouTube.
2: If it isn't, then you need money. That means you need viewers or
backers. Viewers mean you're back making what viewers want to see.
Backers mean you're making what the backers want us to see.

Grab a super-8 camera and =make= the movie you want us to see. Then put
it on YouTube and see if we =do= want to see it.

It's cheaper than flying. :)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[gatt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007042422113016807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...

>>> So Larry, what is your definition of "Control" that can boost the number
>>> from 33.4% to 90%?
>>
>> A friend of mine who is a Statistics instructor regularly dismantles
>> figures
>> such as these. The US economic system is too complex to say offhand
>> "this
>> percentage owns this percentage"; it depends on how you derive your data
>> and
>> how it is organized.
>
> Of course. If the facts don't agree with the original premise, declare the
> statistics to be meaningless and arbitrary.

Note: I'm not Larry.



-c

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>> A friend of mine who is a Statistics instructor regularly dismantles
>> figures such as these. The US economic system is too complex to say
>> offhand "this percentage owns this percentage"; it depends on how you
>> derive your data and how it is organized. By and large, though,
>> corporations are run by people like Carly Fiorina and folks who get paid
>> hundreds of millions of dollars
>
> Paid that much by whom?

Ultimately, America. HP descended so rapidly that the Corvallis plant has
nearly collapsed on itself. Now you buy your crap from China. Carly got a
$25,000,000 bonus for getting fired for ineptitude after her short time
there, but a lot of people I know that worked for HP--engineers who
DEVELOPED THE PRODUCTS and THE ASSEMBLY LINES TO MAKE THE PRODUCTS lost
their jobs in the meantime. If you're somehow content with that system, say
so.

> And that's why our economy is outstripping ever other country in the
> world,

That's what the south said right before the civil war. It was their lack of
industry and effective management that did them in.

> How much responsibility does the truck driver have (a $50K rig) versus t

All the CEOs of all the airlines combined could likely not fly a single 767
from point A to point B. Nor could they train the pilots that do. Carly
would not have had a world-respected printer company to destroy were it not
for the engineers and technicians who developed thos products getting laid
off because of her crappy business management, but she's the one that got
tens of millions of dollars for nearly wrecking the company.

> Maybe if you made more of a career and less of whining and barfing back

I'm a UNIX system administrator. If you don't think I'm doing "really well"
for the amount of sweat that collects on my brow... LOL!
Maybe you shouldn't generalize about people for whom you know jack squat.

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Is that warm, dry sand, or cold, wet sand?
>>
>> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Or you could stick your head in the sand and hope that those of us
>>> who are paying attention will take care of you.
>
> The funniest stuff I saw on TV the past few years (this was at
> relatives home,we pulled our cable in 2000) was Jay Leno asking
> questions to people on the street.
>
> Example!
>
> Leno: "Who is the Vice President?"
> Clueless ditz: "Um...I dunno".
>
> I'm sure Ms. Clueless, though, has an opinion.
>
> Thing is, it was over and over. And other surveys bear him out.

There was a game show on the aire a few years ago did the same thing. It was
really funny to watch until I started thinking about the fact that those
idiot's votes counted as much as mine did.

[ManhattanMan]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> There was a game show on the aire a few years ago did the same thing.
> It was really funny to watch until I started thinking about the fact
> that those idiot's votes counted as much as mine did.

And look what it got us........ :(

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>I don't even know (or care) who "Cho" is. Why? Because I choose what I
>>>watch. Do you? If you don't, that is a problem. But if you do, then
>>>why do you want to choose what =I= and everybody else watches?
>> Settle down. Nobody said anything about choosing for you.
>
> Uh.... that's not quite the case. You said:
>> Should stick with the status quo where pictures of Cho draw viewers,
>> which equates to higher ratings...
>
> The status quo comes about because we, collectively, are choosing it.


"GRESHAM, Ore. (AP) - A 15-year-old boy charged with attempted aggravated
murder after a shooting shattered some windows at a high school told police
he was influenced by a television documentary on the 1999 Columbine
shootings in Colorado."
http://www.katu.com/news/6982432.html

I'm just sayin'...

Why do we know the names and faces of Clebold, Harris, Malvo, Muhammed, Cho,
Whitman, Manson, Bundy.... but we'd have to do an internet lookup to
recall the name of the Holocaust-survivor professor who gave his life
protecting his VT students?

-c

[Jose]

> But millions of people have already "handed over the keys to their brains"
> and, the fact is, showing the faces of murderers prompts copycats. There
> would be no "copycat killers" if they weren't handed a role model by
> somebody selling them ads.
>
> Earlier this month a kid in Oregon fired a rifle into a high school. Later
> he said he was inspired by a documentary about Columbine. That's what I'm
> getting at: Kids who idolize symbolic antiheroes will emulate them to
> capture the same 15 minutes of fame.

I see it the other way around. People are responsible for their own
actions. If they have handed over the keys to their brains, they are
responsible for the result. (Despite the fact that we have to live with
it). But handing over the keys to our brains is exactly what you seem
to be proposing.

Your theme seems to be that we can't do it (properly) ourselves, because
we are making "bad" choices. Who is going to decide what's a bad
choice? Government? The Pope? The PTA? The League of Parents of
Small Children? Gatt himself? We already have too much meddling in our
private lives by the superstitious, the power hungry, the righteous, the
misguided, and the stupid.

The scariest video I've ever seen was a short clip about kidnapping. A
car drives up to a kid and asks where Mulberry street is. The kid goes
up to the car to answer, and inside of a few seconds the back door
opens, somebody snatches the kid, and the car drives away.

What was scary was not that kidnapping is so easy, but rather, the
message which followed, which was that kids should run screaming if
somebody drives up and asks directions. It turns kids into assholes who
are so disconnected from society and so mistrusting of those around that
they will grow up into people who would think nothing of firing a rifle
into a crowd at school.

That was twenty years ago. Those kids have grown up now.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>
> The scariest video I've ever seen was a short clip about kidnapping. A car
> drives up to a kid and asks where Mulberry street is. The kid
> goes up to the car to answer, and inside of a few seconds the back
> door opens, somebody snatches the kid, and the car drives away.
>
> What was scary was not that kidnapping is so easy, but rather, the
> message which followed, which was that kids should run screaming if
> somebody drives up and asks directions. It turns kids into assholes
> who are so disconnected from society and so mistrusting of those
> around that they will grow up into people who would think nothing of
> firing a rifle into a crowd at school.
>
> That was twenty years ago. Those kids have grown up now.
>
> Jose

My wife was in Junior League a few years back and they do a project for 5
year old kids called Safety Town. They work with them on every thing from
how to cross the street to how to not talk to strangers. Near the end of
this WEEK of training I was asked to walk into the play ground looking for
my dog that I lost and see if the kids can put what they learned about not
talking with or going away with strangers to practical use.

I was able to get every single one of the 30 or so kids to walk off with me.
Scared the crap out of me and the parents that were watching the kids from
inside the building.

[Jose]

> Near the end of
> this WEEK of training I was asked to walk into the play ground looking for
> my dog that I lost and see if the kids can put what they learned about not
> talking with or going away with strangers to practical use.
>
> I was able to get every single one of the 30 or so kids to walk off with me.
> Scared the crap out of me and the parents that were watching the kids from
> inside the building.

What would you have them do? Refuse to talk to you and run screaming?
What kind of adults would they turn into?

We get the kind of society we create.

Yes, there are dangers, yes children need to be taught how to
discriminate between good people and bad people (even grownups have a
hard time with that), and yes, "my child" is different. But there is a
real societal cost to this kind of training, which could easily be far
worse, and far harder to undo (because it's a far longer term), than
watching movies without purple dinosaurs.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Private]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> My wife was in Junior League a few years back and they do a project for 5
> year old kids called Safety Town. They work with them on every thing from
> how to cross the street to how to not talk to strangers. Near the end of
> this WEEK of training I was asked to walk into the play ground looking for
> my dog that I lost and see if the kids can put what they learned about not
> talking with or going away with strangers to practical use.
>
> I was able to get every single one of the 30 or so kids to walk off with
> me. Scared the crap out of me and the parents that were watching the kids
> from inside the building.

Scary!

Similarly, as adults we have received years of education and experience in
history and political science but are still willing to trust those we know
are liars because they are the tallest or the most photogenic. Our leaders
should have more qualifications that a simple 'least worst'.

Reminds me of Pogo, "We have seen the enemy and it is us."

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...

>> I was able to get every single one of the 30 or so kids to walk off with
>> me. Scared the crap out of me and the parents that were watching the kids
>> from inside the building.
>
> What would you have them do? Refuse to talk to you and run screaming?

Say "Hang on. I need to go ask permission to go with you."

Is this difficult to grasp?

> What kind of adults would they turn into?

Ones that teach their kids to get permission before wandering off with
strangers?

> We get the kind of society we create.

Ones that teach their kids to get permission before wandering off with
strangers?

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>> Near the end of
>> this WEEK of training I was asked to walk into the play ground
>> looking for my dog that I lost and see if the kids can put what they
>> learned about not talking with or going away with strangers to
>> practical use. I was able to get every single one of the 30 or so kids to
>> walk off
>> with me. Scared the crap out of me and the parents that were
>> watching the kids from inside the building.
>
> What would you have them do? Refuse to talk to you and run screaming?
> What kind of adults would they turn into?
>
> We get the kind of society we create.
>
> Yes, there are dangers, yes children need to be taught how to
> discriminate between good people and bad people (even grownups have a
> hard time with that), and yes, "my child" is different. But there is
> a real societal cost to this kind of training, which could easily be
> far worse, and far harder to undo (because it's a far longer term),
> than watching movies without purple dinosaurs.
>
> Jose


I guess I didn't make myself clear. These kids after being taught safety for
a week were willing to not just talk to me but walk away from the play
ground into the parking lot where I could have easily stuck them in a car an
driven away.

And to answer your questions I would want them to go to an adult they knew
and tell them that a stranger was trying to get them to go to the parking
lot with them.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:28:42 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> I was able to get every single one of the 30 or so kids to walk off with me.
>> Scared the crap out of me and the parents that were watching the kids from
>> inside the building.
>
>What would you have them do?

Five year olds should be supervised by a parent. Anything less is
irresponsible.

[Denny]

> Or you could stick your head in the sand and hope that those of us who
> are paying attention will take care of you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Don, (please take this as kindly rebuttal) what do you think your
paying slavish attention to the news accomplishes?

Does your knowing that Cho butchered a bunch of innocent kids change
one thing? Do you feel better knowing all the details of his deranged
spoutings and savagery? Does your knowing change anything?

Does your knowing that Sunnis and ****es slaughtered each other, once
again, last night contribute to a solution? My gawd, they pray to
the same prophet from the same book and then go out and slaughter each
other in the name of the prophet!

Does knowing that the head of the world bank is stuffing his
girlfriend with money (among other things) do anything at all to
improve your lot in life or that of your family?

Now I could go on with endless rhetorical questions about current
news, but I've made my point adequately... Not one of these things
that you "are paying attention to for me" is meaningful in any way in
your life <or mine>... They are all things that have already
happened. Unless you have a time machine they are fait accompli, over,
finished, poof... You cannot in any way change them...

Now, lets say you feel that following the news makes you a more
informed voter... OK, so you vote for Goodolboy for Senator because
you feel he represents your interest better than his opponent.. As
soon as Goodolboy hits DC who does he represent? You? <hah>
He represents his majority <or minority> whip, who represents the
power brokers in their party... You don't even enter the equation...
You elected someone to represent you and he is representing HIS party
<once the vote is cast you don't even exist in his world until the
next election>...

Not following the rest of the sheep who drool in front of the idiot
tube is not the same thing as ignorance as to what is going on...

cheers - denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:40:53 -0400, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> This motion picture will change your life:
>
>Remember this post the next time you start complaining about off-topic
>threads here... :)

I'll be happy to comply with your request just as soon as you provide
an explanation of the aviation information contained in your articles
posted in rec.aviation.piloting referenced below:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/b31b27a806f709e1?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/9e9865e72f8bd2d0?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/3dd7b6c8564a57e0?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/670ed2d192df53df?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/ab01ecbb98e5880f?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/caa0967fc57dd3c0?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/539c896cd25b308f?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/3967dc87dde567a5?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/98d3c7affb9c84ba?dmode=source

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:17:04 -0400, Jose >
wrote in >:

>>>If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
>> And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
>> negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?
>
>Then watch the news on a different channel.
>
>Actually, the problem isn't so much that the news reporting is
>"controlled" by media companies, but rather, that news reporting is
>under the entertainment division and not the journalism division.

Actually, the problem is that the communications industry is
controlled by only a handful of large corporations, and thus what gets
reported must not taint the image of any of their holdings.

>Who wants to watch real news and actually analyze current events? Yes,
>those kinds of people are in the minority. Most people =prefer= to
>watch a white SUV drive down the highway.
>
>=That= is the problem. It is us, collectively, who decide what is
>profitable to the media companies.

Please explain how the audience can decide on having news of which
they are unaware reported.

>I agree that in doing so, we are
>handing over the keys to our brains, and at some point it will be too
>late.

That point has arrived.

>But the power was not siezed by them, it was given to them.

Actually both are true.

>Whoever the "them" turns out to be.

Rupert Murdock, Sony, ClearChannel, TimeWarner, ...

[Don Tabor]

On 27 Apr 2007 04:38:35 -0700, Denny > wrote:

>Don, (please take this as kindly rebuttal) what do you think your
>paying slavish attention to the news accomplishes?
>
>Does your knowing that Cho butchered a bunch of innocent kids change
>one thing? Do you feel better knowing all the details of his deranged
>spoutings and savagery? Does your knowing change anything?
>
>Does your knowing that Sunnis and ****es slaughtered each other, once
>again, last night contribute to a solution? My gawd, they pray to
>the same prophet from the same book and then go out and slaughter each
>other in the name of the prophet!
>
>Does knowing that the head of the world bank is stuffing his
>girlfriend with money (among other things) do anything at all to
>improve your lot in life or that of your family?
>

The problem is that if I, and other rational people, do not pay
attention, solutions to those problems will be proposed and enacted
which in many cases will be useless if not worse than the problem.

>Now I could go on with endless rhetorical questions about current
>news, but I've made my point adequately... Not one of these things
>that you "are paying attention to for me" is meaningful in any way in
>your life <or mine>... They are all things that have already
>happened. Unless you have a time machine they are fait accompli, over,
>finished, poof... You cannot in any way change them...
>

But we can prevent some of them from happening again, or prepare to
deal more effectively with them if we cannot. Much as we analyze
aircraft mishaps to learn from our mistakes and those of others.


>Now, lets say you feel that following the news makes you a more
>informed voter... OK, so you vote for Goodolboy for Senator because
>you feel he represents your interest better than his opponent.. As
>soon as Goodolboy hits DC who does he represent? You? <hah>

Actually, I am gathering signatures to run for the 14th Senate
District in Virginia this fall as the Libertarian Party candidate.

Don

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> Remember this post the next time you start complaining about
>> off-topic threads here... :)
>
> I'll be happy to comply with your request just as soon as you provide
> an explanation of the aviation information contained in your articles
> posted in rec.aviation.piloting referenced below:

The important part is I don't complain about off-topic threads. Do any of
those links show otherwise?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Is that warm, dry sand, or cold, wet sand?
>>>
>>> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Or you could stick your head in the sand and hope that those of us
>>>> who are paying attention will take care of you.
>>
>> The funniest stuff I saw on TV the past few years (this was at
>> relatives home,we pulled our cable in 2000) was Jay Leno asking
>> questions to people on the street.
>>
>> Example!
>>
>> Leno: "Who is the Vice President?"
>> Clueless ditz: "Um...I dunno".
>>
>> I'm sure Ms. Clueless, though, has an opinion.
>>
>> Thing is, it was over and over. And other surveys bear him out.
>
> There was a game show on the aire a few years ago did the same thing. It
> was really funny to watch until I started thinking about the fact that
> those idiot's votes counted as much as mine did.
We've all surely seen the polls that says something like 60%+ of people
think "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is
from the US Constitution.

Worse, in Congress it's probably 98%.

[Private]

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
snip
>
> Actually, I am gathering signatures to run for the 14th Senate
> District in Virginia this fall as the Libertarian Party candidate.
>
> Don

This will be an interesting life experience for you but will not be without
its own personal problems and issues.

Good luck and Happy Landings, YMMV

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> There was a game show on the aire a few years ago did the same thing.
>> It was really funny to watch until I started thinking about the fact
>> that those idiot's votes counted as much as mine did.
>
> And look what it got us........ :(
Just before the 1996 elections, CATO Institute did a survey of how much
people knoew about government power (Constitution, structure of government,
spending practices...). The results were telling by self-identified groups:

(Rough estimates)

Democrats: 25%
Republicans: 55%
Independents: 60%
Libertarians: 85+%

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Don Tabor" > wrote

> Actually, I am gathering signatures to run for the 14th Senate
> District in Virginia this fall as the Libertarian Party candidate.

While I applaud your attempt at doing something worthwhile, I can't help but
think how futile your effort will be.

Being a third party in a two party system will at most mean you get to break
a tie in a few close issues.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>> There was a game show on the aire a few years ago did the same
>>> thing. It was really funny to watch until I started thinking about
>>> the fact that those idiot's votes counted as much as mine did.
>>
>> And look what it got us........ :(
> Just before the 1996 elections, CATO Institute did a survey of how
> much people knoew about government power (Constitution, structure of
> government, spending practices...). The results were telling by self-
> identified groups:
> (Rough estimates)
>
> Democrats: 25%
> Republicans: 55%
> Independents: 60%
> Libertarians: 85+%

That doesn't surprise me at all, especially the Libertarians. They are a
group that think enough about politics to seek out a third party that more
closely fits their views. To bad that that same group can't get it together
enough to actually field a successful candidate for any national office.

[Jose]

> Actually, the problem is that the communications industry is
> controlled by only a handful of large corporations, and thus what gets
> reported must not taint the image of any of their holdings.

There are plenty of uncontrolled blogs. While they are also unvetted,
some would say that's a good thing. I agree that big corporations have
an unhealthy influence on our perceptions, but it is not all that well
hidden.

> Please explain how the audience can decide on having news of which
> they are unaware reported.

By choosing which channels to watch. By choosing channels that do =not=
feature the lastest sex scandal or UFO visitation. By subscribing to
significant intellectual communications rather than fluff. They'll get
the message. Right now the message is that we want bread and circuses.
So, that's what they dish out.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Does your knowing that Cho butchered a bunch of innocent kids change
> one thing? Do you feel better knowing all the details of his deranged
> spoutings and savagery? Does your knowing change anything?

Does (the general public) knowing how silly the ADIZ and FRZ really is
change anything?

I think it might.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tabor]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:43:21 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Tabor" > wrote
>
>> Actually, I am gathering signatures to run for the 14th Senate
>> District in Virginia this fall as the Libertarian Party candidate.
>
>While I applaud your attempt at doing something worthwhile, I can't help but
>think how futile your effort will be.
>
>Being a third party in a two party system will at most mean you get to break
>a tie in a few close issues.

You may be right, but I have chosen my target carefully.

The incumbent is an unopposed RINO who sides with the Democrat
governor consistently in opposition to the GOP House of Delegates.
Much of the GOP base is disaffected with him. However, the district is
so conservative, the Democrats don't even run a candidate.

That will allow me, as a Libertarian to run to the "right" of my
opponent on taxes, gun laws, government spending and other
conservative issues, while also running to his "left" on issues of
personal liberty and pick up the Democrat votes. (Note: the LP
position is not really left or right of anything, we are really
individual vs collective on everything, but right and left are
understood better.)

I will either squeeze him out from both sides, or **** off everybody,
which I am sure you know by now, doesn't much bother me.

Don

[ktbr]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Actually, the problem is that the communications industry is
> controlled by only a handful of large corporations, and thus what gets
> reported must not taint the image of any of their holdings.
>
>

What would you rather have it controlled by... the Government?

[Jose]

> [gatt] Say "Hang on. I need to go ask permission to go with you."

Ok, that's reasonable. That was not the message I took away from the
video I saw, which was to run screaming.

> I guess I didn't make myself clear. These kids after being taught safety for
> a week were willing to not just talk to me but walk away from the play
> ground into the parking lot where I could have easily stuck them in a car an
> driven away.

It wasn't clear, but that was because I read too quickly. What I take
away from this is that five year olds are hard to teach behavior to.
This is not surprising - it is why it takes so long to raise children.
I suspect it comes down to a perception of safety. Kids percieve adults
to be safe, not dangerous. For the most part, they are right.

My impression (in general) is that our "safety conscious culture" is
going a bit overboard, and that this will have (is having) long term
adverse consequences. And although children are not little airplanes,
the same kind of thinking applies to them too. (just to bring it on topic)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Five year olds should be supervised by a parent. Anything less is
> irresponsible.

I've heard the same about fifteen year olds.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-26 10:24:04 -0700, "gatt" > said:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007042422113016807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>
>>>> So Larry, what is your definition of "Control" that can boost the number
>>>> from 33.4% to 90%?
>>>
>>> A friend of mine who is a Statistics instructor regularly dismantles
>>> figures
>>> such as these. The US economic system is too complex to say offhand
>>> "this
>>> percentage owns this percentage"; it depends on how you derive your data
>>> and
>>> how it is organized.
>>
>> Of course. If the facts don't agree with the original premise, declare the
>> statistics to be meaningless and arbitrary.
>
> Note: I'm not Larry.
>
>
>
> -c

Thank goodness! He probably prefers to his own image in the mirror
rather than yours. :-)


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-27 05:31:30 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:17:04 -0400, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>>>> If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
>>> And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
>>> negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?
>>
>> Then watch the news on a different channel.
>>
>> Actually, the problem isn't so much that the news reporting is
>> "controlled" by media companies, but rather, that news reporting is
>> under the entertainment division and not the journalism division.
>
> Actually, the problem is that the communications industry is
> controlled by only a handful of large corporations, and thus what gets
> reported must not taint the image of any of their holdings.

And yet, they still let people like Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell on the air.

They must have a peculiar idea of what will give them a bad image.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There was a game show on the aire a few years ago did the same
>>>> thing. It was really funny to watch until I started thinking about
>>>> the fact that those idiot's votes counted as much as mine did.
>>>
>>> And look what it got us........ :(
>> Just before the 1996 elections, CATO Institute did a survey of how
>> much people knoew about government power (Constitution, structure of
>> government, spending practices...). The results were telling by self-
>> identified groups:
>> (Rough estimates)
>>
>> Democrats: 25%
>> Republicans: 55%
>> Independents: 60%
>> Libertarians: 85+%
>
> That doesn't surprise me at all, especially the Libertarians. They are a
> group that think enough about politics to seek out a third party that more
> closely fits their views. To bad that that same group can't get it
> together enough to actually field a successful candidate for any national
> office.
Quite!

But without a huge benefactor, they have a significant uphill battle.

Many surveys show a large share of people have libertarian leanings; they
just don't want to vote for them.

It has been pointed out quite often that if, today, you had a ticket of
Jefferson/Madison, they wouldn't get past the primaries, if they made it
that far.


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> You may be right, but I have chosen my target carefully.
>
> The incumbent is an unopposed RINO who sides with the Democrat
> governor consistently in opposition to the GOP House of Delegates.
> Much of the GOP base is disaffected with him. However, the district is
> so conservative, the Democrats don't even run a candidate.
>
> That will allow me, as a Libertarian to run to the "right" of my
> opponent on taxes, gun laws, government spending and other
> conservative issues, while also running to his "left" on issues of
> personal liberty and pick up the Democrat votes. (Note: the LP
> position is not really left or right of anything, we are really
> individual vs collective on everything, but right and left are
> understood better.)
>
Sounds like the Libertarian that ran against the otherwise unopposed Jeff
Flake in Arizona. He got around 20%.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, the problem is that the communications industry is
>> controlled by only a handful of large corporations, and thus what gets
>> reported must not taint the image of any of their holdings.
>>
>>
>
> What would you rather have it controlled by... the Government?

As when the FCC pretty much caused the 2000 Telecom crash?

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_comm-telecom.htm

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> Quite!
>
> But without a huge benefactor, they have a significant uphill battle.
>
> Many surveys show a large share of people have libertarian leanings;
> they just don't want to vote for them.
>
> It has been pointed out quite often that if, today, you had a ticket
> of Jefferson/Madison, they wouldn't get past the primaries, if they
> made it that far.

And someone with JFK's positions would be run out of the Republican party
for being too far right.

The only way the Libertarians or any 3rd party is going to have a chance is
if they start at the lowest levels of politics. They need to first get in at
the city and county level. Once that is done then they have a chance at the
state level.

There is no way they are ever going to get a President elected until they
have several Governors and Congressmen in place and they really shouldn't
waste their limited resources trying.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:46:48 -0400, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> Five year olds should be supervised by a parent. Anything less is
>> irresponsible.
>
>I've heard the same about fifteen year olds.

And I believe it's true to a lesser extent. While I'm not going to
research the law, I'm reasonably sure there is one that prohibits a
parent from leaving a child of less than a certain age without
supervision.

With the loss of the nuclear family in our nation, and the prevalence
of working mothers, whether through necessity as a single parent or
ambition, there is no one at home to rear children these days. Even
the grand parents who might benefit themselves by supervising the
upbringing of their grand children are not on the scene. Latch-key
kids are left to their own, society suffers the consequences:
uncivilized behavior.

[Don Tabor]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:08:56 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>And someone with JFK's positions would be run out of the Republican party
>for being too far right.
>

Agreed


>The only way the Libertarians or any 3rd party is going to have a chance is
>if they start at the lowest levels of politics. They need to first get in at
>the city and county level. Once that is done then they have a chance at the
>state level.
>

There I disagree. Local governments are far too much involved in
dividing spoils and making local projects happen. At least here in
Virginia, what the local governments can do is determined by the
guidelines set at the state level.

Imagine a Libertarian running for city council - "Vote for me and I
won't build the Stadium the State authorizes, but you will pay taxes
for the Stadiums built in every other city."

At the State level, at least you can say "Taxes should not be used for
the building of Stadiums and I will not authorize taxing you for any
Stadium."

>There is no way they are ever going to get a President elected until they
>have several Governors and Congressmen in place and they really shouldn't
>waste their limited resources trying.
>

Also agreed, but the place to start is the State Legislatures.

Don

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Don Tabor wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:08:56 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> And someone with JFK's positions would be run out of the Republican
>> party for being too far right.
>>
>
> Agreed
>
>
>> The only way the Libertarians or any 3rd party is going to have a
>> chance is if they start at the lowest levels of politics. They need
>> to first get in at the city and county level. Once that is done then
>> they have a chance at the state level.
>>
>
> There I disagree. Local governments are far too much involved in
> dividing spoils and making local projects happen. At least here in
> Virginia, what the local governments can do is determined by the
> guidelines set at the state level.
>
> Imagine a Libertarian running for city council - "Vote for me and I
> won't build the Stadium the State authorizes, but you will pay taxes
> for the Stadiums built in every other city."
>
> At the State level, at least you can say "Taxes should not be used for
> the building of Stadiums and I will not authorize taxing you for any
> Stadium."
>
>> There is no way they are ever going to get a President elected until
>> they have several Governors and Congressmen in place and they really
>> shouldn't waste their limited resources trying.
>>
>
> Also agreed, but the place to start is the State Legislatures.
>
> Don

I'm talking about building a party infrastructure not policies. State
legislature will work in some states and not others.

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> [gatt] Say "Hang on. I need to go ask permission to go with you."

> My impression (in general) is that our "safety conscious culture" is going
> a bit overboard, and that this will have (is having) long term adverse
> consequences. And although children are not little airplanes, the same
> kind of thinking applies to them too. (just to bring it on topic)

Yeah, I agree with you wholly. I'm sure we've all seen both ends of the
spectrum; overprotective parents whose kids end up in trouble and
underprotective parents whose kids do the same. Or who don't end up in
trouble at all. (I ended up on both ends but managed to stay out of
trouble.)

If a kid doesn't skin his knees he'll not learn that missteps have painful
consequences, nor will he learn that he's tough enough to endure those
mistakes and improve because of them.

-c

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>> What would you rather have it controlled by... the Government?
>
> As when the FCC pretty much caused the 2000 Telecom crash?
>
> http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_comm-telecom.htm

As a victim of the 2000 telecom crash, I disagree:

"The telecom collapse is now often chalked up to several years of irrational
exuberance on Wall Street, together with accounting fraud by WorldCom, one
of the industry's leaders. But-as Michael Powell, for one, appears to
recognize-there is a serious case to be made that the industry's refractory
problems can be traced to a single source: the FCC's own implementation of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Thereby hangs a most dismal tale."

Coincidence, but wrong. "Irrational exuberance" is the most accurate part of
this statement. I worked for the fifth largest network provider on the west
coast. They laid a multimillion dollar fiberoptic backbone between several
states, decided they didn't need it, leased it to Sprint, decided they
needed it and then had to lease it back from Sprint, thus basically blowing
millions of dollars. They spent tens of thousands of dollars to locate an
ideal office facility in Seattle and then realized they not only already had
one there, they'd been paying the lease and utilities on an empty building
for some time. It had just fallen off the Facilities record. THEN, the
same thing happened in San Francisco.

At the same time, salespeople were selling business based on the promise of
a future product, while all the engineers were trying to tell marketing that
the product that they were promising and were selling to investors was -not
technically possible-.

Meanwhile, they hired people at ridiculous salaries, gave them the
equivalent of a college education, and those employees went to places like
Time Warner, GST, because those companies would cheerfully pay for the
skills that our company had given them. But then when that company went
bankrupt, our company hired all those people back. But, somehow, they ended
up getting substantially more money than they did before they betrayed the
company in the first place, which meant they were making twice as much as
the people who remained loyal.

Basically people were just throwing money around and job-jumping, screwing
each other over, making promises and setting ridiculous stock
expectations...and people were buying into it, for awhile. A lot of people
in the industry saw it coming, but if you said anything about it--like the
engineers who said the product they were selling to investors was like
promising that next year's Toyota would fly--you were likely to be one of
the first to go when the layoffs happened.

But if it wasn't for that competition, you would not have the internet
diversity and bandwidth that you have now.

-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:35:28 GMT, ktbr > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, the problem is that the communications industry is
>> controlled by only a handful of large corporations, and thus what gets
>> reported must not taint the image of any of their holdings.
>>
>>
>
>What would you rather have it controlled by... the Government?

It's not about who, but about _how_ _many_ _different_ entities
provide news content.

I would prefer that news media content were not controlled at all
other than being truthful and providing _all_ the news.

However, I do expect the government to control public resources like
the NAS and the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, and limit the
influence of any single entity from dominating the people's interests.

[Mxsmanic]

Don Tabor writes:

> The problem is that if I, and other rational people, do not pay
> attention, solutions to those problems will be proposed and enacted
> which in many cases will be useless if not worse than the problem.

Actually, there's nothing you can do.

Most of what you see on the news does not affect you, and you cannot affect
most of what you see on the news. The reports are designed to make you
uneasy, so that you will seek reassurance--by watching more of the news. It
works very well with people who are not aware of how it is intended to work.

The reality is that if you stopped watching the news tomorrow, the world would
be neither a better nor a worse place in consequence. Most of what is on the
news is completely irrelevant to you, and you are irrelevant to it. There
isn't enough news that is truly linked to you in some way to fill all the
airtime that needs to be filled, and additionally the news that is linked to
you isn't scary, so it won't make you uneasy and eager to see more news.

> But we can prevent some of them from happening again, or prepare to
> deal more effectively with them if we cannot. Much as we analyze
> aircraft mishaps to learn from our mistakes and those of others.

"We" meaning who? Certainly not you. There's nothing _you_ can do. That's
an illusion.

> Actually, I am gathering signatures to run for the 14th Senate
> District in Virginia this fall as the Libertarian Party candidate.

Which means you don't have a chance. It's ironic that a country that loves to
crow about its democratic tradition effectively prohibits the existence of
more than two parties, which effectively reduces many elections to merely a
choice between the incumbent and someone else ("change" or "don't change," a
bit like throwing dice).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Don Tabor writes:

> That will allow me, as a Libertarian to run to the "right" of my
> opponent on taxes, gun laws, government spending and other
> conservative issues, while also running to his "left" on issues of
> personal liberty and pick up the Democrat votes. (Note: the LP
> position is not really left or right of anything, we are really
> individual vs collective on everything, but right and left are
> understood better.)

Why don't you just run as an independent?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Does (the general public) knowing how silly the ADIZ and FRZ really is
> change anything?
>
> I think it might.

It hasn't so far.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:19:37 -0400, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>>> Remember this post the next time you start complaining about
>>> off-topic threads here... :)
>>
>> I'll be happy to comply with your request just as soon as you provide
>> an explanation of the aviation information contained in your articles
>> posted in rec.aviation.piloting referenced below:
>
>The important part is I don't complain about off-topic threads. Do any of
>those links show otherwise?

Another important fact is, that I don't complain about off-topic
threads to other than the individual who initiated the original
off-topic article. Once the barn door is open, ...

[Dan Luke]

"gatt" wrote:

>
> I'm just sayin'...
>
> Why do we know the names and faces of Clebold, Harris, Malvo, Muhammed, Cho,
> Whitman, Manson, Bundy....

Because that's what "we" WANT to know. If people did not have these morbid
interests, TV networks could not make money pandering to them.

It bears occasional repeating:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
-H. L. Mencken

[Jose]

> Latch-key kids are left to their own,
> society suffers the consequences:
> uncivilized behavior.

Latch-key kids are not the same as kids who are unsupervised for certain
parts of the day.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ManhattanMan]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
> public." -H. L. Mencken

Just look at the intellectual treasure trove of material at the supermarket
checkout stands!! :)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>> "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
>> public." -H. L. Mencken

The quote say "..underestimating the GULLIBILITY.."
>
Also, Mencken made it famous, but he got it from P.T. Barnum

[Maxwell]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>> "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
>>> public." -H. L. Mencken
>
> The quote say "..underestimating the GULLIBILITY.."
>>
> Also, Mencken made it famous, but he got it from P.T. Barnum
>

Johnny Carson once ask George Carlin what he thought of America's dope
problem, to which Carlin quickly (and very accuratly) replied " I'll have to
agree with you Johnny, we have far too many dopes."

As for the supermarket check out line, I want one of those tosters the burn
a crucifix image on the toast. They say they are posessed, but I think it
would be just the touch for Sunday morning breakfast.

[vincent p. norris]

>My daughter is in the upper 1% income bracket......

I hope you will forgive those of us who take that with a grain of
salt. Is she a movie star, a rock star, or a pro basketball player?

vince norris

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Don Tabor writes:
>
>> The problem is that if I, and other rational people, do not pay
>> attention, solutions to those problems will be proposed and enacted
>> which in many cases will be useless if not worse than the problem.
>
> Actually, there's nothing you can do.
>
> Most of what you see on the news does not affect you, and you cannot
> affect most of what you see on the news. The reports are designed to
> make you uneasy, so that you will seek reassurance--by watching more
> of the news. It works very well with people who are not aware of how
> it is intended to work.
>
> The reality is that if you stopped watching the news tomorrow, the
> world would be neither a better nor a worse place in consequence.
> Most of what is on the news is completely irrelevant to you, and you
> are irrelevant to it. There isn't enough news that is truly linked to
> you in some way to fill all the airtime that needs to be filled, and
> additionally the news that is linked to you isn't scary, so it won't
> make you uneasy and eager to see more news.
>
>> But we can prevent some of them from happening again, or prepare to
>> deal more effectively with them if we cannot. Much as we analyze
>> aircraft mishaps to learn from our mistakes and those of others.
>
> "We" meaning who? Certainly not you. There's nothing _you_ can do.
> That's an illusion.
>
>> Actually, I am gathering signatures to run for the 14th Senate
>> District in Virginia this fall as the Libertarian Party candidate.
>
> Which means you don't have a chance.

You're a moron.

Bertie

[Don Tabor]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:54:17 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Don Tabor writes:
>
>> That will allow me, as a Libertarian to run to the "right" of my
>> opponent on taxes, gun laws, government spending and other
>> conservative issues, while also running to his "left" on issues of
>> personal liberty and pick up the Democrat votes. (Note: the LP
>> position is not really left or right of anything, we are really
>> individual vs collective on everything, but right and left are
>> understood better.)
>
>Why don't you just run as an independent?


Because I am a Libertarian.

It would be dishonest to disguise that fact by masking my point of
view regarding government behind a plain brown wrapper.

I wouldn't be much of a Libertarian if I used subterfuge to improve my
chances of getting elected.

Don