Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

Quetzadilla: Jun 6, 2005; A PARTICULARLY GHOULISH SHITPOSTER FOR NEOLIBERLISM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Taerkar posted:

It took me a few moments to realize that that was referring to the procedure of fracking and not some strange replacement for "loving".

This is actually a very accurate interpretation so don't feel bad.

# ? Jun 27, 2011 20:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 16:35

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

CaptBushido posted:

I thought the point of opposition to fracking wasn't that they're pumping harmful materials into the ground, but that by pumping water they loosen up petroleum, heavy metals, etc. that are ALREADY in the ground which then flows into the water supply.

if that's the case, then isn't "Don't worry they mostly just use water " an astonishingly ignorant response to controversy? wait, don't answer that...

It's pretty standard for fracking advocates to claim that any of the harm caused by fracking was already present in those areas before fracking began. So, if you watched Tom Ridge, current fracking lobbyist for the natural gas industry, on Colbert a couple of weeks ago, you'd have heard him claim that the video evidence of flammable water in areas with heavy fracking isn't the fault of fracking because the natural gas in those areas was already doing that before the fracking began and most of the fracking material is water and sand.

This is all extremely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, but the lobbyists and energy industry don't give a gently caress about the truth, they just want to profit without any kind of regulations getting in their way.

# ? Jun 27, 2011 22:27

Abandoned Toaster: Jun 4, 2008

The Columbus Dispatch is pretty typical in the editorial department. I see Cal Thomas every now and then, and most letters published seem to follow the news formula of "give both sides equal time". Most of the "crazy" ones are relatively tame talking-point pieces, although I have seen straight-up chain e-mails sent in and printed.

This was in today's:

quote:

I respectfully disagree with the Sunday Forum column �Photo-ID law is as shameful as a poll tax� by Thomas Suddes. Suddes thinks the polls that show that Ohioans are concerned about purported voter fraud are a result of �the oceans of cash spent nationally by Republicans on low-fact, sky-is-falling vote-fraud propaganda.�

I think Ohioans base their view on reality. The Plain Dealer article �Checking ID�s not required for credit� in the same day�s Dispatch mentioned a couple stunned to discover that thieves had cleaned out their checking account to the tune of $4,612.

The thieves were able to rack up fraudulent charges without being required to show a photo ID. Why? Because merchants can ask for a photo ID, but they can�t require it.

Suddes must be assuming that the people who commit crimes such as credit-card fraud and steal $14 billion per year without having to show a photo ID are mutually exclusive from people who vote.

In other words, everyone who votes is honest. Now that would be propaganda.

HERB KIRCHNER

"Voter fraud is real because people who commit credit card fraud and other crimes vote and therefore they're defrauding the voting booth."
:psyduck:

# ? Jun 29, 2011 13:34

Quetzadilla: Jun 6, 2005; A PARTICULARLY GHOULISH SHITPOSTER FOR NEOLIBERLISM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Hahahaha jackpot.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/29/illegal-aliens-guide-to-top-five-best-places-to-live-in-america/

quote:

Opinion
An Illegal Alien's Guide to the Top Five Best Places to Live In America

By Bob Dane

Published June 29, 2011

When �relocating� to the United States, it�s best to avoid states that have selfishly put the interests of their legal residents ahead of yours with laws that hinder your access to jobs and benefits. But many attractive destinations remain, endorsed by millions of illegal aliens already living in each.

1. California

California�s state motto �Eureka� (I have found it!) aptly applies here. The state's population includes 3.2 million illegal aliens -- almost 24% of all illegal aliens in America -- have chosen the Golden State as their preferred domicile.

Despite its $26 billion budget deficit, the state spends $21.5 billion dollars annually subsidizing illegal alien health care, education, welfare, other state benefits and criminal justice. Every California native-born household chips in $2438 each year to help.

Unless you commit a violent felony, the state leaves you alone. Los Angeles Special Order 40 � a sanctuary policy that sets the tone statewide - prevents local officers from inquiring about your immigration status.

Many �visitors� head straight for Central Valley, which depends on a combination of immigration and irrigation to produce almost 8 percent of America�s total agricultural output. You�ll be in good company because more than half of the farm workers in California have no work authorization.

Of course don�t forget in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Take advantage of the Dream Act in a place that can only be described as the Dream State for Illegal Aliens.

2. Montgomery Country, Maryland

If jobs are what attract you, then this upscale community close to our nation's capital offers the mother of all magnets.

The first step to getting a job is to visit a Casa De Maryland (CASA) Welcome Center. Their employment specialists help you find a job and don�t give a hoot about your legal status. They will even help you acquire an IRS-issued taxpayer identification number because, of course, you�re here illegally and not eligible for a real Social Security number. This powerful organization is truly the illegal alien Welcome Wagon with $16 million in assets, $4.9M of it acquired in 2010 from government contracts!

Don�t worry about Secure Communities because the County recently opposed its implementation. And for college-bound illegal aliens, take advantage of in-state-tuition now that the state passed the Maryland Dream Act.

3. Washington State

There�s nothing like a valid driver�s license in your hip pocket to help you navigate the U.S. at will.

Most states require you to present your Social Security Number (SSN) to get one. Washington has made an exception. If you don�t already have a fake SSN � or aren�t �borrowing� one from a U.S. citizen � simply sign a form and bring a utility bill along to prove you�re living in the Evergreen State.

Don�t have a utility bill? Washington accepts Mexican Matr�cula Consular ID cards as proof of identification. The state is not concerned with FBI and Department of Justice warnings that the cards are not reliable forms of ID and pose �major criminal and potential terrorist threats.�

Don�t even have a consular card? That�s even easier than getting a driver�s license. Visit the Mexican Consulate in Seattle and bring a birth certificate (they�re not concerned about whose it is) and proof of address.

Is this a great state or what?

4. Chicago - All of Illinois too!

The Beatles may have had you and Chicago -- the whole state even -- in mind when they sang "I get by with a little help from my friends.� Local politicians will entice you, excuse you, and if you don�t mind terribly, use you.

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is a good friend of illegal aliens and a stalwart supporter of the DREAM Act.

U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez is your other friend. He�s on record saying, �I have only one loyalty, and that�s to the immigrant community.�

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is also on your team. He recently told the federal government that Illinois will not participate in Secure Communities.

What does remain is Chicago�s sanctuary city policy. You won�t be asked any questions if you keep out of trouble but should you get jailed, no one will check your immigration status even when you�re in custody.

Finally, Chicago�s mayor, Rahm Emmanuel understands your needs; he used to be President Obama�s Chief of Staff. He�ll do what he can locally to continue the president�s agenda of dismantling of immigration enforcement.

Of course you�ll be expected to vote for all these folks once they figure out a way to make you legal but you'll get used to it, quid-pro-quo voting is a Chicago-style tradition.

5. New Haven, Connecticut

New Haven is what its name implies � a haven for illegal aliens. You won�t need to fuss with legal documents like driver�s licenses, social security card, Green Card, visa or passport; there is a card just for you. In 2007, this town became the first in the country to offer ID cards to residents, �regardless of age or immigration status."

The most useful aspect of having one of these cards is that it allows you to open a bank account and deposit money from the job you�re working -- without legal authorization.

Interestingly, the New Haven ID card has embedded holograms so that no one can ever steal your identity. Yale�s hometown has thought of everything right down to making sure no one in town ever has a phony illegal alien ID card.

Final Tip

Given that the citizens of these destinations keep voting for politicians who enact policies that welcome illegal immigration, we�re certain they�ll be pleased by your arrival.

Bob Dane is Communications Director for FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Kristen Williamson is Communications Assistant for FAIR.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/29/illegal-aliens-guide-to-top-five-best-places-to-live-in-america/#ixzz1Qic3TP2h

# ? Jun 30, 2011 02:30

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Abandoned Toaster posted:

The Columbus Dispatch is pretty typical in the editorial department. I see Cal Thomas every now and then, and most letters published seem to follow the news formula of "give both sides equal time". Most of the "crazy" ones are relatively tame talking-point pieces, although I have seen straight-up chain e-mails sent in and printed.

This was in today's:

"Voter fraud is real because people who commit credit card fraud and other crimes vote and therefore they're defrauding the voting booth."

More importantly, he's completely ignoring the point of the letter he's responding to that actual research and statistical analysis don't bear out a conclusion assumed by people fearmongering about voter fraud.

It's a pretty classic response from fearmongers when they get challenged with real evidence to use some (often tangentially related) anecdote in their defense, as if the plural of "anecdote" is "data."

This often comes up in discussions about healthcare reform where right wingers, who against any kind of universal healthcare system like those used by every other first-world nation, use some horror story anecdote about someone who had a bad experience in one of those systems (usually stuff about "lines" and "death panels") to refute all the statistical evidence about lower costs, better health outcomes, and overall social improvements from those "socialized" healthcare systems.

# ? Jun 30, 2011 10:31

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Quetzadilla posted:

Hahahaha jackpot.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/29/illegal-aliens-guide-to-top-five-best-places-to-live-in-america/

I loving hate these kinds of xenophobic, anti-immigration screeds.

The worst part is that they are selectively leaving out all the information that would show how their opinions are the polar opposites of what actual facts and research demonstrate.

E.g. that author claims various costs endured by the state of California from illegals, including "criminal justice," but he fails to tell the reader that a study from 2008 found that, in California, "Immigrants are far less likely than the average U.S.-born citizen to commit crime in California."

quote:

Among men 18 to 40, the population most likely to be in institutions because of criminal activity, the report found that in California, U.S.-born men were institutionalized 10 times more often than foreign-born men (4.2 percent vs. 0.42 percent).

Among other findings in the report, non-citizen men from Mexico 18 to 40 -- a group disproportionately likely to have entered the United States illegally -- are more than eight times less likely than U.S.-born men in the same age group to be in a correctional institution (0.48 percent vs. 4.2 percent).

# ? Jun 30, 2011 10:49

AfroSpatula: Jan 1, 2007; Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
It's an avatar you see.

Bruce Leroy posted:

It's a pretty classic response from fearmongers when they get challenged with real evidence to use some (often tangentially related) anecdote in their defense, as if the plural of "anecdote" is "data."

I was amused because the letter assumed that the singular of "anecdote" is "data".

# ? Jun 30, 2011 13:36

WanderingKid: Feb 27, 2005; lives here...

Kevin Myers, Irish Independent, June 24 2011 posted:

How can do-gooders possibly think that Gaza is the primary centre of injustice in Middle East?

What is it about Israel that prompts such a widespread departure from common sense, reason and moral reality? As another insane flotilla prepares to butt across the Mediterranean bringing "aid" to the "beleaguered" people of Gaza, in its midst travelling the MV Saoirse, does it never occur to all the hysterical anti-Israeli activists in Ireland that this is like worrying about the steaks being burnt on the barbecue, as a forest fire sweeps towards your back garden?

I took part in a discussion about the Middle East last weekend in the Dalkey Books Festival. It was surreal. Not merely was I the only pro-Israeli person in the panel of four, but the chairwoman of the session, Olivia O'Leary, also felt obliged to throw in her three-ha'pence worth.

Israeli settlers on the West Bank were on stolen land, she sniffed. Palestinians in their refugee camps had title deeds to the ancient properties. The UN had repeatedly condemned Israel. Brian Keenan, who was held hostage by Arab terrorists for four years, then detailed Israeli human-rights abuses, to loud cheers.

Israel -- and its sole defender on the panel (is mise) -- were then roundly attacked by members of the audience. But what was most striking about the audience's contributions was the raw emotion: they seemed to loathe Israel.

But how can anyone possibly think that Gaza is the primary centre of injustice in the Middle East? According to Mathilde Redmatn, deputy director of the International Red Cross in Gaza, there is in fact no humanitarian crisis there at all. But by God, there is one in Syria, where possibly thousands have died in the past month.

However, I notice that none of the Irish do-gooders are sending an aid-ship to Latakia. Why? Is it because they know that the Syrians do not deal with dissenting vessels by lads with truncheons abseiling down from helicopters, but with belt-fed machine guns, right from the start?

What about a humanitarian ship to Libya? Surely no-one on the MV Saoirse could possible maintain that life under Gaddafi qualified it as a civilised state. Not merely did it murder opponents by the bucketload at home and abroad, it kept the IRA campaign going for 20 years, and it also -- a minor point, this, I know -- brought down the Pan Am flight at Lockerbie. Yet no Irish boat to Libya. Only the other way round.

And then there's Iraq. Throughout the decades of Saddam Hussein, whose regime caused the deaths of well over a million people, there wasn't a breath of liberal protest against him. Gassing the Kurds? Not a whimper. Invading Kuwait? Not one single angry placard-bearing European liberal outside an Iraqi embassy.

Destroying the drainage systems of the Marsh Arabs? Silence. Manipulating UN oil-for-food programme so that thousands died? Nothing.

Next, Saudi Arabia, whose revolting practices cannot be called medieval without doing a grave injustice to the Middle Ages. It is led by savages who have studiously turned their backs on knowledge -- even as they sip their Krug and their Bollinger in their �100m apartments in Belgravia. They behead and behand, they torture and they mutilate, and they have spent billions on their foul madrasahs teaching young Muslims right across the world to hate us kaffirs. But what demonstrations are there outside Saudi embassies? What flotillas to defend the human rights of the millions of immigrant serfs, who toil without any rights in Saudi homes and in the oil industry?

There isn't a single Arab country, not one, with the constitutional protection that Israel confers on all its citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation. And no, I don't like the settlements on the West Bank, but really, by any decent measure, it is simply not possible to gaze upon the entire region, reaching from Casablanca to Yemen, and then to point indignantly and say: "Ah yes, Gaza: that's where the one great injustice lies."

The last 'aid flotilla' to Gaza carried a large number of Islamists who wanted to provoke: and aided by some quite astounding Israeli stupidity, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Now another convoy is under way, and again with an utterly disingenuous plan to bring "assistance" to the "beleaguered Gazans", some of who, funnily enough, can now cross into Egypt any time they like, and buy their explosives and their Kalashnikovs in the local arms-bazaar.

And as for human-rights abuses: why, nothing that Israel has done in the 63 years of its existence can possibly compare with the mass-murders of Fatah members by Hamas firing-squads over the past five years.

The colossal western intellectual dissonance between evidence and perception on the subject of Israel at this point in history can perhaps only be explained by anthropologists.

This dissonance is perhaps at its most acute in Ireland, where no empirical proof seems capable of changing people's minds. Israel, just about the only country in the entire region where Arabs are not rising up against their rulers, is also the only country that the Irish chattering classes unite in condemning. Rather pathetic, really.

Link

Kevin Myers, Irish Independent, May 25 2011 posted:

Strauss-Kahn is one of those politicians who serve only power and their own craving for it.

IS there anyone outside the ruling elite in France who feels a scintilla of sympathy for Dominique Strauss-Kahn? As much of Europe stares glumly into the void, this creature embodies one of the basic divisions in mankind: he is a who, not -- that is, until last week in New York -- a whom. He doeth; others are done unto by such as him. That's it, the story of the human race: Politicians versus The Rest.

"Fling away ambition," croaked a dying Cardinal Wolsey in Shakespeare's 'Henry VIII'. "By that sin, the angels fell."

Quite so. Peasants used to believe that moths were the souls of fallen angels, though in reality it is politicians who are the seraphim whose souls were destroyed by ambition.

But they have their Lepidopteran aspects too. For the pheromones of raw ambition infest their lives, like the molecular musk of distant she-moths in heat upon a summer's night, causing our Fallen Angels to seek out and court princes, parliaments and power.

Look at them. Bush, Blair Brown, Ahern, Sarkozy, Roosevelt, Churchill, Obama. From their early 20s, most of them have never done anything but lust after power. They've never started or run a business or had a separate career. They know nothing of the real world.

They might be called "lawyers", or, like DSK, "un conseil" (surely one of the most sinister words in the entire French language). However, it is not law they practise, but ambition.

Law is merely the means, equipping them with the vocabulary and contacts. And the ambitious who lack the charisma or patience for conventional politics seek power by other, more covert means, hence the likes of Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Cheney and, of course, Strauss-Kahn. They attend their political masters with apparent loyalty: however, they serve not men, but power and their own helpless craving for it.

Political ambition is genetically coded and as compulsive as alcoholism. For a dangerous few, such as Franklin D Roosevelt or Winston Churchill, it is also combined with an addiction to utter recklessness: a truly lethal combination for those under their command.

And when megalomania is combined with no conscience at all, you have a Mao, a Stalin or a Hitler.

The differences between the conduct of the democratically and the despotically ambitious can often blur: the firebombing of German and Japanese cities could only have been authorised by those for whom power was a ruthless repressor of scruple.

There are differences between Auschwitz and Dresden, to be sure: yet not so great as to make the rest of us comfortable. But the only sleep that Churchill ever lost over the tens of thousands of hapless German civilians burnt alive was the damage that such immolations might do to his reputation.

Fallen Angels, whatever their political dispensation, constitute a separate caste in society. A Stalin, a Blair, a Strauss-Kahn and all those communist politicians in the Eastern European bloc who overnight became democratic politicians -- they are merely on different extremes of a single spectrum. They all want power, whereas the rest of us would flee screaming from its responsibilities, like a gay vegan from a piece of raw liver with a vagina.

This is perhaps why it is so unusual for a fine soldier then to succeed as a politician. Wellington and Eisenhower are the exceptions: Churchill, conversely, departed the field of battle for the safety of the Commons at the very first opportunity in 1916.

I am relating the following news story from Georgia, US, because I want to. Headlined "Assailant suffers injuries from fall", it runs: "Orville Smith, a store manager, observed a male customer, later identified as Tyrone Jackson. . . putting a laptop under his jacket. When confronted, the man became irate, knocked down an employee, drew a knife and ran for the door.

"Outside. . . were four Marines, collecting for the Toys for Tots programme. They stopped the man, who stabbed one of the Marines, Cpl Philip Duggan, in the back. Cpl Duggan was transported for treatment.

"The subject was also transported to the local hospital for treatment; with two broken arms, a broken ankle, a broken leg, several missing teeth, possible broken ribs, multiple contusions, assorted lacerations, a broken nose and a broken jaw. . . injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell off the curb . . . according to a police report."

Politicians seldom, if ever, freely serve their country like the men and women of the United States Marine Corps. And when they're compelled to do so, as Senator John Kerry was, they usually find a safe billet, and even then are able to secure a grotesquely disproportionate number of decorations, as Kerry duly did. But that is life.

We are governed by our Fallen Angels, who always reward themselves excessively: hence DSK, with four different homes around the world. So, naturally, he was in first-class in his airliner at JFK when he was arrested. How much sweeter would it have been if he had simply fallen off the curb, US Marine-style, upon leaving his hotel in New York.

Link

This guy is easily one of the worst columnists I have read in recent times. The first is verbose whataboutery. I will never understand how the implication that there are places in the world in greater need of aid (and therefore Gaza doesn't deserve it), can in any way be called an argument. It also implies that as long as a great inequity exists, you shouldn't put time and effort into righting (arguably) lesser inequities.

I think its really despicable to criticize anyone trying to be a positive force for change by saying "you should be a positive force for change somewhere else". Not surprisingly, this columnist got hammered in the letters to the editor section for (amongst other things), getting the UCRC Gaza Delegation Director's name wrong and going a step beyond misquoting her and into the realms of all out character assassination.

The second one is appalling for different reasons. It was so thick with analogy that I lost the point he was trying to make. Then he brings up a completely unrelated example "because I want to". Its a very poorly formed argument and this guy has a history of, pretty much just trolling the poo poo out of readers. I have no idea why he gets published and he reflects badly on the paper as a whole. He has long been a parody of himself and now hes just a professional troll. A bad one too.

He also wrote a flat out racist column entitled (quote) "Africa is giving absolutely nothing to anyone - apart from aids (/quote) which I cannot quote because it has (unsurprisingly) been retracted by the paper and removed from its archive. This article should have ended his career in print media. You can google search the title to read many of the reader responses to it. He also dominates this thread.

WanderingKid fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jun 30, 2011

# ? Jun 30, 2011 16:21

Quetzadilla: Jun 6, 2005; A PARTICULARLY GHOULISH SHITPOSTER FOR NEOLIBERLISM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

WanderingKid posted:

Manipulating UN oil-for-food programme so that thousands died? Nothing.

Yes, Saddam's manipulation of the program was the problem. I don't understand how anyone can hear the phrase "Oil-for-food program" and not immediately retch at the idea that we will starve a population for the actions of its leader unless said leader will give up that sweet light crude.

quote:

They all want power, whereas the rest of us would flee screaming from its responsibilities, like a gay vegan from a piece of raw liver with a vagina.

UUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHHH

# ? Jun 30, 2011 18:18

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

I'm a heterosexual meat-eater and I'd probably running screaming from a liver with a vagina, too.

# ? Jun 30, 2011 22:12

Neptr: Mar 1, 2011

Lady wrote to the local paper complaining about how the Massachusetts State Senate voted 6-32 against an amendment to Romney-care requiring identification when accessing medical care. So what would happen if the amendment passed and an illegal still needed medical care? To busy screaming "MY TAX DOLLARS" to see the answer to that one.

quote:

I wonder when the Environmental Protection Agency will declare the taxpayer an endangered species in Massachusetts?

# ? Jul 1, 2011 01:29

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Pope Guilty posted:

I'm a heterosexual meat-eater and I'd probably running screaming from a liver with a vagina, too.

Maybe "raw liver with a vagina" is what Myers calls his wife in the sack?

# ? Jul 1, 2011 01:43

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Neptr posted:

Lady wrote to the local paper complaining about how the Massachusetts State Senate voted 6-32 against an amendment to Romney-care requiring identification when accessing medical care. So what would happen if the amendment passed and an illegal still needed medical care? To busy screaming "MY TAX DOLLARS" to see the answer to that one.

That's not really an ice burn because the author is ignorant as hell of our tax system and how healthcare and medicine work. Socialized healthcare systems like those in every other first-world nation actually cost less and insure each nation's entire population while the US spends wildly more (in absolute terms, per capita, and as a percentage of GDP) than those nations to insure a fraction of its population.

If that writer really cared about the American tax payer, they'd be in favor of socialized system like that of Massachusetts.

That author is also implying the conservative trope about how only something like 50% of Americans actually are "taxpayers," which is to say that a large portion of Americans aren't net payers of federal income taxes. This completely glosses over the fact that the reason for this is that those "non-income tax payers" only don't pay because they are so loving poor. It's also ignores the fact that those poor people still pay their other taxes like FICA, sales tax, and property tax, which are the regressive taxes that hurt the poor far more than the rich.

As for your question about what would happen if illegals still needed medical care, these kinds of conservatives give zero fucks about illegals and view them as subhuman scum. If they think what Joe Arpaio does to illegals is ok, they probably aren't in favor of providing medical care to illegals with tax dollars, even if illegals are a crucial part of our economy and providing healthcare to them saves us money on and cuts the costs of doing business.

# ? Jul 1, 2011 10:35

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Here are two absolutely awful and hateful editorials from neo-con PR executive Eliana Benador.

The links are to the rightwingwatch.org entries about the articles because the first one was pulled from the Washington Times website and the second one requires you have an account at Tea Party Nation.

Eliana Benador on the Anthony Weiner scandal posted:

Congressman Weiner�s indiscretions, however, might end up inconveniencing the present Administration�s plans. �How?� you might ask.

The clues may be found in the marriage of Huma Abedin, a devout Muslim, and Anthony Weiner, a Jew.

�

When looking broadly at the Anthony Weiner�Huma Abedin union, we have to wonder if the coupling of a Jewish American man and a Muslim woman of her pedigree was fostered by love or by a socialist political agenda.

�

Less than a year ago, in July 2010, Huma Abedin married Jewish U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Attesting to the strength of her relationship with the Clintons, former President William J. Clinton officiated at the ceremony. Not unlike President Obama, the Clintons, as well as powerful politicos such as George Soros, are devotes of Saul Alinksy, who is considered �the founder of modern Community Organizing.� From my position, I clearly see that the actions of this group signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.

Which begs the question of whether Huma Abedin been groomed by family and political leaders to carry this agenda forward? It�s noteworthy that Time Magazine listed Huma Abedin in its �40 under 40� list of the new generation of civic leaders and �rising stars in American politics.� That certainly puts her in a position to move the Alinsky-group agenda forward.

The Imam of New York has stated: �I would tell her [Huma] to be a little bit patient. In our book, if you think your wife, or husband, is doing something unacceptable, you start by counseling her.�

Counseling? For whom, Huma or Anthony? The Imam�s statement seems to state that Huma is in need.

Regardless, those are words of compromise offered by a leading Muslim Imam trying to make us forget that the Koran actually advocates stoning wives for adultery while turning a blind eye toward the sexual mis-deeds of the husband.

It is also important, when looking at this situation, to remember that observant Muslims practice Taqiyya , an element of sharia that states there is a legal right and duty to distort the truth to promote the cause of Islam.

Given the defense articulated by the Imam, which would be offered only for a Muslim man, we must believe this opportunity to remove this Muslim woman from a union with an non-believer would be quickly taken. Therefore we must consider that Mr. Weiner *may* have converted to Islam, because if he did not, we have to consider the unlikely, that being that Ms. Abedin has abandoned her Muslim faith, even while she still practices.

However, we should also bear in mind that any who are Jewish by orthodox standards will always remain Jewish, even if they have converted to another faith. This may explain rumors that Mr. Weiner went to his synagogue looking for moral support.

The question that begs to be asked, however, is, has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?

If that is so, Anthony Weiner may be proven to be the weak link in a pro-Muslim political agenda.

And the final test of that may be in Huma Abedin�s reactions to her husband�s lack of moral principals.

Eliana Benador on non-European immigrants posted:

Some may agree that we have forgotten the lessons taught by slavery -and may be prone to not identify it even if it knocks at our doors, when we see a silent invader roaming our streets and we don�t dare call it as it is:

The invasion of America is taking place as we speak, but if we remove those blinders, we can still stop it.

What has happened to our country? How did this situation begin? It all began when then Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy heavily supported the abolition of the National Origins Formula, in place since the Immigration Act of 1924, to replace it with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

In a flagrant display of nepotism in America, when the three Kennedy brothers took the reins of American politics, immigration reform was a critical issue for the family community of origin: the Irish.

�

Despite assurances by the Kennedys that the immigration reform they were pressing for, would not upset America�s ethnical balance: �It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs�,� it ended up altering the immigration pattern and opening doors to non-European nations, thus changing forever the intrinsic tissue of American society.

As we celebrate America�s Independence Day, it�s noteworthy that the percentage reduction of original American voters, might have been a defining factor in the election of someone like the current president, who among other goals, seems to be keen in opening further our borders to endlessly increasing numbers of immigrants who, regardless of their skin color, are bringing in a whole new texture of culture, 100% foreign to what America�s origins were as its wonderful adventure began back in 1776.

As America celebrates her 235th Independence Day, she finds herself under siege from all kinds of enemies: The known and the unknown; the external and the internal enemy.

The external enemy is that whose goal is to expand so much throughout the world with its most coveted prize: our land.

�

One Administration after the other has kept the immigration-invasion under the radar, hiding behind the First Amendment to the Constitution that stands for freedom of religion� in our country.

However, the First Amendment does not stipulate that �freedom of religion� must be upheld even if the followers of a religion have perpetrated an attack on, and massacred, our civilian population in times of peace, especially if that religion incites to the destruction of our country, our people, and our values.

It's pretty obvious that Benador is a racist and anti-Muslim bigot, so it says volumes about Tea Party Nation and tea baggers in general that they would embrace this awful person.

# ? Jul 6, 2011 07:35

Abandoned Toaster: Jun 4, 2008

Ugh, I saw this one in the paper before I went on a family trip for the Fourth of July weekend and it made me want to slap the guy who wrote it.

David Harsanyi: Too many people? Not a problem posted:

For years, the Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups have warned us that too many babies will destroy the Earth.

"We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet's life-forms - an estimated 8,760 species die off per year - because, simply put," explained environmentalist Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, "there are too many people." (Well, not exactly that simple when one considers that millions of species had disappeared long before humans selfishly began drinking from plastic bottles.)

In one of his recent works of speculative fiction, The New York Times' Thomas Friedman asked: "How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we'd crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?" Dunno. Maybe we value reality? Perhaps we believe in the ability of humans to adapt and to innovate. Perhaps we've learned that Malthusian Chicken Littles slinging stories about the impending end of water or oil or natural resources are proved wrong so often that we ignore them.

Though, admittedly, it's difficult to ignore the charismatic pseudoscience of Al Gore. "One of the things that we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women," the former vice president explained at the Games for Change Festival. "You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children (they) have, the spacing of the children."

No doubt capitalism appears terribly unstable to the autocratically inclined Gore, but nonetheless, in this country "fertility management" is not only already ubiquitously obtainable by girls and women but also obtainable by boys and men - and for free at any Planned Parenthood and at many schools. There is also post-fertility management, or 1.3 million yearly abortions - because no one should be punished with a baby.

Then again, perhaps educating and empowering girls should be the job of parents. After all, Gore has blessed Earth with four of his own offspring. Does he believe the world would be better off without two of them? If not, why does he assume that an "empowered and educated" woman would reach the conclusion that having fewer children is a more logical and moral choice? (Many, including Bryan Caplan, author of the superb new book Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think, would probably make a strong counterargument.)

Gore hasn't embraced any nefarious brand of population control. But President Barack Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, co-authored (with Paul Ehrlich of Population Bomb notoriety) a book in the 1970s that toyed with the idea of compulsory sterilization and coerced abortions to "de-develop the United States." (Boy, the tea party is so radical!) Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, openly advocated for population control to weed out undesirables. You'll remember that in a New York Times interview, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she "thought that at the time Roe (vs. Wade) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Whatever did she mean?

If "too many" people are killing 8,760 species every year, isn't it an imperative to do something? What is holding us back? [Gee I dunno, people like you?] If unrealized human life is only going to sponge off the Earth and decimate our natural resources, don't we have a duty to limit population growth?

Forget that the populations of Brazil and India and a number of other nations continue to grow and life continues to improve. Forget that our own standard of living steadily increases while our population steadily grows. Forget the never-ending ingenuity and development of mankind - especially anything that has to do with fossil fuels.

For Gore, people are parasites, millions of little environmental disasters. And when a man embraces debunked 19th-century notions rather than empirical evidence, well, surely another Nobel Prize is in order.

There are so many things with this article I just... argh. His argument basically boils down to: "Animals died for millions of years without humans, we still haven't run out of fossil fuels even though they said we would, population control is a liberal conspiracy to get rid of undesirables, and population is still growing and we're not seeing any strain on resources." Not to mention he ignores things like The Green Revolution, even with which nearly a billion people in the world go hungry and even more are in crippling poverty, the destruction of entire lakes and ecosystems, and thinks that the science and theories of the affect of population upon the planet hasn't progressed beyond Thomas Malthus' essay. gently caress you, Harsayni.

# ? Jul 6, 2011 17:18

Thenipwax: Jun 20, 2001; by Ozmaugh

Bruce Leroy posted:

That author is also implying the conservative trope about how only something like 50% of Americans actually are "taxpayers,"

My uncle was attempting to engage me in a political discussion the other day, and he was saying that 50% of Americans are on government "assistance". Seriously? Does it take too much critical thinking to examine that number enough to realize it is ridiculous? I think Fox News pushes that statistic, as it was blaring in his living room when I was over there. My uncle started talking in maniacal tones as well. Seriously, politics makes people loving crazy.

# ? Jul 6, 2011 18:13

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

The other 50% are marginalized and kept too stupid and poor by those that get the government assistance.

The original 50% are the companies/rich

# ? Jul 6, 2011 19:16

constantIllusion: Feb 16, 2010

From Monday's Buffalo News:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/from-our-readers/letters-to-the-editor/article477335.ece posted:

Mamet has exposed hypocrisy of liberalism
Jeff Simon�s review of David Mamet�s �The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture� is a pathetic exercise in sophistry designed to condemn Mamet�s conversion from liberalism to conservatism. Mamet�s cogent attack on liberal dogma has obviously threatened Simon�s core political beliefs, triggering his hysterical rant and snarky allusions to Rush, Glenn and Bill.

Mamet exposes the liberals� attempt to replace our Judeo Christian values with the deadly fallacy of wishful utopian thinking. By denying reality, liberals have promoted many misguided policies that have infringed upon our freedoms, policies such as multiculturalism, affirmative action, man-made global warming and political correctness. He sees liberal education as a means of indoctrinating our young in identity politics.

Mamet also exposes the hypocrisy of liberalism as a wicked dream devised by those who would bankrupt others, but not themselves. One need only to think of rich socialists like Soros and Streisand and liberal politicians who favor redistribution of wealth and national health care, neither of which would affect them.

Simon�s largely ad hominem attack on Mamet is unbecoming. Then again, he may have found honest rebuttal a futile endeavor.
Jim Costa

Elma

# ? Jul 6, 2011 19:56

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

I've read my local newspaper for years and one of my favorite sections is always the "letters to the editor" section, simply for the sheer stupidity and insanity expressed in the letters.

I recently started going online to the paper's website, where you can actually comment on the letters that have been printed. Interestingly, most of the comments on the website are quite intelligent, sane, and insightful critiques of the printed bullshit.

So, does this mean that the newspaper's editorial staff just sucks, that most of the people writing to the newspaper (you can submit the letters via email, too) looking to have their letters printed are stupid and crazy, or that there is some kind of age divide between the reactionaries that write to the paper and the younger, more sensible people that comment on the paper's website?

Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jul 7, 2011

# ? Jul 7, 2011 01:13

RC and Moon Pie: May 5, 2011

Bruce Leroy posted:

I've read my local newspaper for years and one of my favorite sections is always the "letters to the editor" section, simply for the sheer stupidity and insanity expressed in the letters.

I recently started going online to the paper's website, where you can actually comment on the letters that have been printed. Interestingly, most of the comments on the website are quite intelligent, sane, and insightful critiques of the printed bullshit.

So, does this mean that the newspaper's editorial staff just sucks, that most of the people writing to the newspaper (you can submit the letters via email, too) looking to have their letters printed are stupid and crazy, or that there is some kind of age divide between the reactionaries that write to the paper and the younger, more sensible people that comment on the paper's website?

It may be because of where I'm from, but I've never run into an intelligent online newspaper audience. THIS is the talkback section of the Athens Banner-Herald. It's a universe where the letters (which are on the paper's actual website) are more sane than the comments. That stated, in Athens if it isn't associated with directly UGA or directly with the Banner-Herald, there is a 95% chance it's insane.

As far as the printing of letters, it depends on the paper you have, really. Some editors get their jollies with insanity. Some do it for readership, to try to get responses. A few do it to try to say their views are balanced.

# ? Jul 7, 2011 03:17

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

RC and Moon Pie posted:

It may be because of where I'm from, but I've never run into an intelligent online newspaper audience. THIS is the talkback section of the Athens Banner-Herald. It's a universe where the letters (which are on the paper's actual website) are more sane than the comments. That stated, in Athens if it isn't associated with directly UGA or directly with the Banner-Herald, there is a 95% chance it's insane.

As far as the printing of letters, it depends on the paper you have, really. Some editors get their jollies with insanity. Some do it for readership, to try to get responses. A few do it to try to say their views are balanced.

That makes sense.

My local paper also gets a lot of "letters" from different groups that are basically just press releases reworked to sound like they aren't generic forms just slightly reworked for the dozens of newspapers they are sent to.

Even worse are the ones that are sent in by actual citizens but which are actually those form emails that conservative groups get their members and readerships to send in under the guise that they are legitimate grassroots support/criticism when they are actually just obvious astroturf. Recently, one particular astroturf letter was submitted multiple times by different people with the exact same wording and all of them were published by the paper just a month or so between each. I checked online and several other readers pointed this out but somehow the paper missed it.

Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jul 7, 2011

# ? Jul 7, 2011 06:51

Ned: May 23, 2002; by Hand Knit

RC and Moon Pie posted:

It may be because of where I'm from, but I've never run into an intelligent online newspaper audience. THIS is the talkback section of the Athens Banner-Herald. It's a universe where the letters (which are on the paper's actual website) are more sane than the comments. That stated, in Athens if it isn't associated with directly UGA or directly with the Banner-Herald, there is a 95% chance it's insane.

As far as the printing of letters, it depends on the paper you have, really. Some editors get their jollies with insanity. Some do it for readership, to try to get responses. A few do it to try to say their views are balanced.

Do you post on there? I do as Ned, obviously, and let me tell you that I am so happy I have moved half way across the world from those idiots.

# ? Jul 8, 2011 08:40

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Ned posted:

Do you post on there? I do as Ned, obviously, and let me tell you that I am so happy I have moved half way across the world from those idiots.

Are the newspapers where you currently live any better with their editorial content and letters/comments from readers?

# ? Jul 8, 2011 10:13

Ned: May 23, 2002; by Hand Knit

Bruce Leroy posted:

Are the newspapers where you currently live any better with their editorial content and letters/comments from readers?

I live in

so I don't bother to read the local paper. I actually met with the folks from the major newspaper company here but they don't want to allow commenting on their website and the system they use is terrible. I grew up reading my hometown paper and the site is actually quite good considering the circulation of the paper.

# ? Jul 8, 2011 12:11

RC and Moon Pie: May 5, 2011

Ned posted:

Do you post on there? I do as Ned, obviously, and let me tell you that I am so happy I have moved half way across the world from those idiots.

No, I don't bother with it. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is the only paper where I post comments.

Even with the idiots and Paul Broun, it's still more liberal than the south Georgia podunk where I'm from.

# ? Jul 8, 2011 20:12

Lets Pickle: Jul 9, 2007

Quetzadilla posted:

If you don't already know this, it's worth noting that these pieces are generally written by industry advocates (lobbying groups) in an attempt to intentionally mislead readers. That's why the one on fracking is long, extremely well-written, seemingly well-researched while still being completely disingenuous, and also not credited to an author (not even a first name). I would know, I got paid to write them.

I highly recommend checking out Gasland if you haven't already or aren't that well-versed in fracking but want to know more about its effects. The documentary isn't loaded with a lot of info, and pretty much everything in the film is just anecdotal experiences because the director set out to document a personal journey rather than make an expose` about natural gas, but it's still pretty compelling.

http://ohiocitizen.org/?p=7479
This is a link to part of a document that an Ohio resident found in her driveway some time after being approached to lease her land for fracking. It is a guide of talking points for agents of fracking companies to use while talking to homeowners. It gives you an idea of how disingenuous energy companies can be when trying to get people to sign leases. Major talking points include "talk about independence from foreign oil!" and "just get them to sign any kind of lease and then we can do whatever we want and legal can deal with it later."

# ? Jul 9, 2011 01:42

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Lets Pickle posted:

http://ohiocitizen.org/?p=7479
This is a link to part of a document that an Ohio resident found in her driveway some time after being approached to lease her land for fracking. It is a guide of talking points for agents of fracking companies to use while talking to homeowners. It gives you an idea of how disingenuous energy companies can be when trying to get people to sign leases. Major talking points include "talk about independence from foreign oil!" and "just get them to sign any kind of lease and then we can do whatever we want and legal can deal with it later."

The absolute worst was when Tom Ridge was on The Colbert Report and said that he's not a lobbyist for the natural gas industry, correcting Colbert who said he was. Then, Tom Ridge goes on to describe what he does for the natural gas industry, which is pretty much the textbook definition of what a corporate lobbyist does.

He also pulled all that bullshit about fracking that "it's mostly sand and water" and he claimed that all those people who have flaming tap water after fracking began in their communities were wrong to blame it on the fracking and that it was already happening before the fracking began.

# ? Jul 9, 2011 07:51

Babby Formed: Jan 2, 2009

Lets Pickle posted:

http://ohiocitizen.org/?p=7479

Holy crap, spreading this around to everyone I know. I have family down in southern ohio who have seen people approached by these assholes. The bit where they go so far as to tell agents to never compare db levels to anything tangible, while minor, is hilarious in it's depravity.

EDIT: Worst "point" goes to "only have the husband look at the lease and negotiate if at all possible, it's legal to have just them sign it and them womenfolk ask too many questions." It's like they lifted this straight out of a used car salesman's book.

Babby Formed fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Jul 9, 2011

# ? Jul 9, 2011 11:58

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Babby Formed posted:

Holy crap, spreading this around to everyone I know. I have family down in southern ohio who have seen people approached by these assholes. The bit where they go so far as to tell agents to never compare db levels to anything tangible, while minor, is hilarious in it's depravity.

EDIT: Worst "point" goes to "only have the husband look at the lease and negotiate if at all possible, it's legal to have just them sign it and them womenfolk ask too many questions." It's like they lifted this straight out of a used car salesman's book.

Can you tell us anything about your family being approached by these folks? Can they identify the company in question? Can you show them this and ask them if the tactics outlined in this document sound familiar?

# ? Jul 9, 2011 12:17

Babby Formed: Jan 2, 2009

Pope Guilty posted:

Can you tell us anything about your family being approached by these folks? Can they identify the company in question? Can you show them this and ask them if the tactics outlined in this document sound familiar?

Nobody actually related to me has been approached yet, just neighbors and friends of theirs. I'll see if I can't ask my cousin to press for some details and show the neighbors the document though.

# ? Jul 9, 2011 12:28

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Babby Formed posted:

Holy crap, spreading this around to everyone I know. I have family down in southern ohio who have seen people approached by these assholes. The bit where they go so far as to tell agents to never compare db levels to anything tangible, while minor, is hilarious in it's depravity.

EDIT: Worst "point" goes to "only have the husband look at the lease and negotiate if at all possible, it's legal to have just them sign it and them womenfolk ask too many questions." It's like they lifted this straight out of a used car salesman's book.

How exactly do conservatives maintain their deregulatory, laissez faire positions when poo poo like that happens?

How does all that cognitive dissonance not put them into vegetative comas?

# ? Jul 10, 2011 10:55

Lord Zedd-Repulsa: Jul 21, 2007; Devour a good book.

Lets Pickle posted:

http://ohiocitizen.org/?p=7479
This is a link to part of a document that an Ohio resident found in her driveway some time after being approached to lease her land for fracking. It is a guide of talking points for agents of fracking companies to use while talking to homeowners. It gives you an idea of how disingenuous energy companies can be when trying to get people to sign leases. Major talking points include "talk about independence from foreign oil!" and "just get them to sign any kind of lease and then we can do whatever we want and legal can deal with it later."

So what's the deal about stressing that China's bought more oil than us?

# ? Jul 12, 2011 08:13

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Grey Mage posted:

So what's the deal about stressing that China's bought more oil than us?

People are dumb as poo poo and you can get a lot out of people by appealing to nationalism.

# ? Jul 12, 2011 08:20

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

Suck the devil's dick in hell Cal.

quote:

Millionaires and Billionaires

By Cal Thomas

Tribune Media Services

�Nothing succeeds like success� � Alexandre Dumas, 1802-1870

If new millionaires or billionaires were created every time President Obama and his fellow liberals disparage �millionaires and billionaires,� there would be far more of them than there are today. And that would be a good thing because it would mean more people are succeeding.

This president, more than any other in my lifetime, seems determined to punish and discourage success and the hard work, risk-taking and values by which one must live in order to attain it. He blasts people who fly on private planes, though he flies on Air Force One, the ultimate private plane, which taxpayers pay for. He doesn�t like yachts, or specifically the people who can afford to buy them. And yet the people who make the private planes and yachts have jobs precisely because others have achieved a level of success that enables them to afford such luxury.

Recall during the George H.W. Bush administration when congressional Democrats persuaded Bush to sign a bill increasing the luxury tax on yachts in exchange for a promise � later broken � to reduce spending. The result was fewer people bought yachts, boat builders were laid off and Congress later repealed the tax hike. Don�t liberal Democrats ever learn economic principles, or does their class warfare trump all else?

People who envy the successful won�t receive any of the money higher taxes might bring in. Congress will spend it long before it �trickles down� to the poor and even if the poor did get some of the largesse from the wealthy, when the money runs out they would likely remain poor because their attitude toward �entitlements,� rather than wealth building would remain unchanged. Isn�t that the story of the failed welfare system? Welfare mostly subsidizes people in poverty, helping few escape from it.

In their hearts, most people who are poor would like to be rich, or at least self-sustaining, but this president never talks about how they might achieve that goal. Instead, he criticizes those who made the right choices and now enjoy the fruits of their labor. Rather than use successful people as examples for the poor to follow, the president seeks to punish the rich with higher taxes and more regulations on their businesses.

President Calvin Coolidge, who is receiving another look by some historians, said in 1919, �The great aim of our government is to protect the weak, to aid them to become strong.� See the difference? President Obama apparently thinks the weak and poor can never become strong and rich without government, though government has a poor track record of aiding people in either endeavor.

Another Coolidgeism: �Don�t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.�

Pulling down the strong seems to preoccupy this administration and congressional Democrats. Is that unfair? Where, then, can one find a champion of achievement, risk-taking and capitalism among the Democratic leadership? Many of them are rich; they just don�t want too many of the rest of us to become rich. If we do, we might not need government, or them. And we might just vote Republican.

There is something deeply repulsive, even un-American, about this war on achievers. We once held them in higher regard because they built and sustained the nation. What do the unsuccessful produce?

Wealth is a sign of achievement, a reward for risks taken. And being poor is not a crime, unless those in poverty refuse to strive to overcome it.

That�s the message this president should be broadcasting, not one that trashes success and promotes class division and envy of the successful.

# ? Jul 12, 2011 17:49

Unlearning: May 7, 2011

^ gently caress me.

Check out Cafe Hayek, the Austrian polemic 'Dan Bordeaux' regularly posts vitrolic letters into NYT and copies them to his blog.

# ? Jul 12, 2011 18:57

Thenipwax: Jun 20, 2001; by Ozmaugh

God, Cal Thomas is so loving horrible. His pieces are always the worst, and his stupid little head shot makes him look like a smug Mrs. Doubtfire.

I especially liked the part about the poors' attitude towards entitlements. Hmm, think he could expand on that? Apparently if you're poor you just want more and more sweet government titty.

# ? Jul 13, 2011 15:36

Handsome Ralph: Sep 3, 2004; Oh boy, posting!
That's where I'm a Viking!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html

:psyduck:

So if I'm reading this right, according to Friedman, we're all hosed unless we either work in social media or are willing to reconsider our jobs/roles every three months.

I don't even...

# ? Jul 13, 2011 17:04

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

My God, Thomas Friedman, the truth is in the middle! Why didn't I see this before? :monocle:

# ? Jul 13, 2011 19:01

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Boondock Saint posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html

So if I'm reading this right, according to Friedman, we're all hosed unless we either work in social media or are willing to reconsider our jobs/roles every three months.

I don't even...

I think his point is everything is fine and everybody under 35 should just invent their own facebook if they have a problem being wage slaves working in shipping depots for online shopping sites.

# ? Jul 14, 2011 04:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 16:35

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

katlington posted:

I think his point is everything is fine and everybody under 35 should just invent their own facebook if they have a problem being wage slaves working in shipping depots for online shopping sites.

It's great that he's citing bloated market capitalizations of social media companies as proof of the new, dynamic, START UP OF YOU! society.

Clearly the interconnected nature of the Internet has allowed a broadening of social networks as well as a flattening of the barriers preventing an entrepreneur from leveraging their personal drive and social capital to bring dynamism to Yesterday's concepts and birth the dreams of Tomorrow. Remember, the next Zuckerberg isn't going to find himself by fruitlessly digging into the status quo, but by vaulting over that pit into the fields of possibility.

# ? Jul 14, 2011 04:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »