PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (3) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Clear Our Your Desk -- We've Got Apu Now
January 29th 2004, 17:42 CET by Caryn

For those who hate discussion about what affects the U.S., I apologize for the U.S.-centric nature of this topic. But I'm assuming this isn't just affecting the U.S., so I'm curious to hear from people outside of the U.S. on this.

My dad's been working as a CAD designer on chips for a couple of decades now. He's worked for Digital, IBM, Harris Semiconductor, and most recently Intel, working on their next-generation processors. But that was a year ago. When his contract with Intel came up for renewal a year ago, they chose not to. Since then he's been looking for more work in his industry and he can't find it, because all the jobs have now gone to India. It's been over a year now, so he's decided the tech industry doesn't have room for him anymore, and he's looking at other options for work.

Wired has an article about this very subject. While this was also linked at Slashdot, I was really interested in getting some discussion about it here, and I mean real discussion. I didn't create this topic to complain about said jobs going to India. I'm curious about discussing some of the things that the article -- which is very good -- brings up. Things like, how do you think this will effect the US economy in both the near and far future? What do you think about the article's assertion that the next phase for the US, now that we've moved out of both agriculture and industry, is one of discovery and innovation? Do you think this is going to affect the gap between the very, very rich and the current middle class?

To inject a little personal opinion into the topic, I'm torn on this issue. My dad has been directly affected by this, and I can see what it's done to him personally to find that no one wants to hire him, and for him to have to go looking for a new job in something he's not interested in or trained to do. On the other hand, I find that people who are trying to pass laws against outsourcing are ridiculous -- no one, including Americans, has a god-given right to these jobs. The world changes, and this is something that's a natural part of a global economy. And somewhere in the middle, I'm concerned about these changes occuring too fast for Americans to keep up with and how that's going to affect the current middle class. But when all is said and done, I believe what the article says when it talks about these type of changes having occured in the past and been for the greater good, despite individuals losing their jobs.

What do you think?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Clear Our Your Desk -- We've Got Apu Now

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#109 by Warren Marshall
2004-01-29 20:30:12
http://www.wantonhubris.com/
#108 chris
Warren -

Tests first. Interview later. We base who we're going to interview on how they handled the tests. The tests are emailed to them, and they can take as much time as they want (within reason... if it takes you three weeks to carve up a site I can do in twenty minutes, you're not right for the job).

-chris

Ah cool.  That's perfect, thanks.

We do the same thing with artists ... we send them an assignment and see (a) how long it takes to complete and (b) how they did it.

"Cheap Garbage Disposal Canít Handle Femur"
#110 by Squeaky
2004-01-29 20:30:13
#97 Shadarr
Squeaky,

If you want to buy a nice house for $150,000 CDN, move to Edmonton.  Personally, I think the cost of living here is worth it for the quality of life. But there is a certain allure to knowing that I could buy a house right now if I moved there.

But I'd have to live in Edmonton.

Got throat problems? Why not try sucking on a Fisherman's Friend!
dvds
#111 by Charles
2004-01-29 20:39:14
www.bluh.org
Living in Edmonton is a fate worse than death.  I know, because I'd choose death before I'd choose to move back to Edmonton.

-chris
#112 by Jibble
2004-01-29 20:40:36
#108 chris
Warren -

Tests first. Interview later. We base who we're going to interview on how they handled the tests. The tests are emailed to them, and they can take as much time as they want (within reason... if it takes you three weeks to carve up a site I can do in twenty minutes, you're not right for the job).

-chris

I would think that a reasonable combination of "tests first" and "verification tests during the interview" would be an ideal solution, as it would assure that the applicant had actually done the test on their own.  Seems to me like it would be really easy to weed out shitty coders if you asked them to do a simple <TABLE> layout in hand-coded HTML.  I'm consistently amazed at how many web developers can't actually do a two-column, two-row table with some spanning by hand.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#113 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 20:45:08
The problems with the economy go far beyond the concept of outsourcing.  At the root of the evil is America's arbitrary system of valuing money, and its cure-all behavior of just printing more and trying hard not to cause a huge rise in inflation that makes everything come crumbling down.

Money needs to be backed by something with a specific value.  We're kept afloat, more often than not, by manipulations of value that are based in nothing more than the notion that we need to get things to a certain place, and what values should we move around to get there.  The problem is, this type of behavior is by its nature, destructive to a stable economy and there's really no stopping it once you've been doing it for awhile.  It's sort of like a drug addict that continues to use after he no longer enjoys or receives the high, just because he cannot tolerate the withdrawls.

Ignoring all of the legal and constitutional issues concerning America's banking system, it's just a bad idea.  It's fine if you do indeed have a global economy that is all under the same umbrella, and the dollar has acted as that umbrella since the beginning but it can't sustain things forever.

That said, I am completely opposed to a "global economy" and one world government concepts - and I don't understand this strange compulsion to constantly change everything.  Concepts and methods that have proven themselves to be sound and positive should not be abandoned for the sake of some idealistic and flawed concept that all the world should unite under one banner, or at least have completely open boarders for trade.

Tax stuff coming in, tax stuff coming out, cut deals where it has to, and keep the boarders of the country safe and relationships with other countries beneficial with that money - this is the role of the national government, or should be anyway.  The government has no business aiding, funding, underwriting, or in any other way supporting the private sector and the individuals and businesses within it.  However, it does have business with keeping its wealth at home and so wouldn't be likely to allow outsourcing of any sort just for the sake of saving a company money.

The answer is not more government, more socialism inspired policies, or any sort of federal regulation of domestic affairs.  We have the most liberal of american presidents in recent history in office right now under the guise of being a conservative.  The country's already been fooled by this, though, so my hope of people ever waking up and working to reverse the trend towards complete governmental control of the citizenry grows smaller every damned day.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#114 by Jibble
2004-01-29 20:48:42
#113 UncleJeet
We have the most liberal of american presidents in recent history in office right now under the guise of being a conservative.

What?

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#115 by Duality
2004-01-29 20:49:33
Dualipuff@yahoo.com http://stratoscape.ath.cx/
From the article ...
She looks at me. Then she says, "I'd like to know where you go from knowledge."

I think the argument on both sides is very valid.

America has gone through changes such as these in the past, and its rebounded with fair success.  But what does come after the IT industry?  This continental shift of white-collar jobs came very suddenly.  Almost no one saw it coming and had time to prepare.  Now we have a lot of IT workers who are out on their ass without jobs and without the money to go back to school to learn a new trade.

I think the ones that are going to weather this the best are the recent IT workers who have a multitude of skillsets -- the ones that went from a business job to a tech job.  They'll continue to be the liasons between technology and executive.

I'm slow to suggest funding for programs for displaced programmers, as it sounds ridiculous, but what is there?  The only other option is to tax the shit out of companies who decide to do outsource, and I'd like to share some of the crack you smoke if you think that's going to happen.

#24 Jibble
I think an interesting question here is this: Would the cost of living would go down if widespread salary cuts happened?

I really don't think so.  I was of the understanding that pay increases happen in direct proportion to the rate of inflation.  Pay cuts across the board, I imagine, would cause an economic depression.  I was also of the understanding that mass economic deflation would be a serious issue, as well.  Though I'm not sure how.  I never took an econ course.

All in all, I agree with Our Friend that legislation really is not necessary.

#101 Jibble
I think one major problem with companies these days is that they don't test people on their knowledge anymore.

I would so appreciate a company that did this.  Looking at a job posting on a website or in the Classifieds almost always tells you dick all about what the company is looking for, exactly.  As well, applying for a job that did that would give me the chance to test my current skills to what the job market is often looking for.
#116 by Your Friend
2004-01-29 20:50:43
Fiscally liberal.  He spends, spends, spends.  He's made government a lot bigger -- look at the entire Homeland Security Dept.

Comment Signature
#117 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:01:42
#115 Duality
I would so appreciate a company that did this.  Looking at a job posting on a website or in the Classifieds almost always tells you dick all about what the company is looking for, exactly.  As well, applying for a job that did that would give me the chance to test my current skills to what the job market is often looking for.

I used to look in the classifieds for jobs.  Not one worthwhile thing in there to apply for.  Shotgun phone interviews, useless leads, and misleading ads were the norm.  The same applies to online job boards.  Your best bet is to go to a contracting firm (read: temp agency) and work your way up.  If anything, you're moving into a smaller market of people that employers can choose from, so you're more likely to be offered something.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#118 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 21:04:11
Jibble

What YF said.  He's inflated the government to its largest yet, enacted all sorts of neat socialistic type programs, and seems to be unable to say No when it comes to someone asking for some more spending.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#119 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:05:33
Ahh, liberal spending, not liberal policies.  Gotcha.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#120 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 21:11:07
Just for the sake of my curiosity, could you define a liberal policy as well as a conservitive policy?  By define, I mean definition not examples of concepts.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#121 by Duality
2004-01-29 21:21:09
Dualipuff@yahoo.com http://stratoscape.ath.cx/
#117 Jibble
I used to look in the classifieds for jobs.  Not one worthwhile thing in there to apply for.  Shotgun phone interviews, useless leads, and misleading ads were the norm.  The same applies to online job boards.  Your best bet is to go to a contracting firm (read: temp agency) and work your way up.  If anything, you're moving into a smaller market of people that employers can choose from, so you're more likely to be offered something.

What scares me, not just about what you've said, but about this whole topic is the underscore of my own mortality.

After making mistakes at my job at the bank, I understand that I'm far from the top, a mere speck from the best the IT support industry has to offer.  I've never had to work so hard to try and better myself.  I've managed to coast through shit in the past.  It frightens me that I have to adapt or die.

I fear change.

But a temp agency is a good idea.  I'll keep that under advisement.  Contracting is not an option for me.  I'm not a take-charge person, and I really cannot see myself staying afloat with a business controlled by me.
#122 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:22:23
For every definition, there will be examples or concepts for which that definition is not correct.  Hence, I refuse to embark on a journey into the madness that is redefining what liberal and conservative mean.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#123 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:25:57
#121 Duality
Contracting is not an option for me.

In seven words, you've explained the problem with most people who are looking for a job.

When you are unemployed, nothing should be beneath you.  Any job, regardless of how you view yourself through your rose colored glasses, should be good enough for you.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#124 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 21:26:32
Um, ok.  If you can't define it, just say so - it takes a lot less words.  I imagine it'd be pretty tricky to define a "liberal policy" that is independent of "liberal spending" - which is exactly why I challenged you with the task, to illustrate that there is no distinction.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#125 by Shadarr
2004-01-29 21:26:47
shadarr@yahoo.com http://digital-luddite.com
But I'd have to live in Edmonton.


Err, yeah, I thought I'd covered that when I said I think the cost of living here is worth it for the quality of life.  Or is that just your way of saying I get it!?
#126 by Bailey
2004-01-29 21:29:11
Temp agencies are bias against male receptionists! Or more accurately, the companies they fill positions for.

Life without shame.
#127 by Shadarr
2004-01-29 21:29:16
shadarr@yahoo.com http://digital-luddite.com
I would define a liberal policy as one which benefits the citizens of the country, whereas liberal spending could be reworded as "spending liberally".  Obviously Bush is doing the latter and not the former.
#128 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:30:33
Waiting for Jeet to tell Shadarr that he's wrong...

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#129 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:33:10
#124 UncleJeet
Um, ok.  If you can't define it, just say so - it takes a lot less words.  I imagine it'd be pretty tricky to define a "liberal policy" that is independent of "liberal spending" - which is exactly why I challenged you with the task, to illustrate that there is no distinction.

I will define one right now if you like.

Liberal policy - abortions should legally be the option of the mother of the child.

The spending in this case would be limited to the salary of the lawmakers that put it into effect.  If you wanted to get unnecessarily involved and let the government pay for the abortion, that's a whole other matter.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#130 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 21:33:23
So a conservative policy must be one which harms the citizens of the country?

My point with all of this is that the terms liberal and conservative have been manipulated by both parties and the media and distorted into new meanings.  Liberal means a liberal application of government - a lot.  Conservative means the opposite, it's that simple.  However, the terms have left that idea behind and now speak more to general political philosophies centering around morality and freedoms and such.  That's why you think hippie when you think liberal, and you think jerry falwell when you think conservative.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#131 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 21:34:44
I present to you that legalized abortion is not a liberal application of government, but a conservative one.  To enact policy and enforcement to prevent abortions would be applying government in a liberal fashion.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#132 by Greg
2004-01-29 21:36:24
I thought it was funny when jeet said "Define liberal, but don't use an example", and jibble went right ahead and used an example as the definition.

-DKI(ID
#133 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:38:08
#130 UncleJeet
So a conservative policy must be one which harms the citizens of the country?

My point with all of this is that the terms liberal and conservative have been manipulated by both parties and the media and distorted into new meanings.  Liberal means a liberal application of government - a lot.  Conservative means the opposite, it's that simple.  However, the terms have left that idea behind and now speak more to general political philosophies centering around morality and freedoms and such.  That's why you think hippie when you think liberal, and you think jerry falwell when you think conservative.

So, in other words, the terms no longer mean what they used to?  I don't see the problem here, other than your need to cling to antiquated definitions of terms, you gay faggot*.

*By this, I of course mean that you are a happy bundle of sticks, not that you are a homosexual.  Any offense you take is just due to your newfangled definitions of the words, and I can't be held responsible for that.  Damn media.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#134 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:41:02
At least now we know that everyone here has different definitions for the words "conservative" and "liberal".  I hope that this ends any discussion on the matter because I don't want to try redefining anything like we did with atheism.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#135 by Hugin
2004-01-29 21:42:15
lmccain@nber.org
"Liberal" and "Conservative" have always broken down into functional subsegments of political thought.  Social, fiscal, structural, judicial.  Claiming that it's just about the size of government or the amount of spending is uselessly simplistic.
#136 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:47:04
#132 Greg
I thought it was funny when jeet said "Define liberal, but don't use an example", and jibble went right ahead and used an example as the definition.

The problem is this:

I imagine it'd be pretty tricky to define a "liberal policy" that is independent of "liberal spending" - which is exactly why I challenged you with the task, to illustrate that there is no distinction.

Jeet ignores the fact that it's okay for "liberal" to mean both "not very limited" and "characteristic of a person with liberal political leanings" in the same sentence.  It's also okay for me to say that a .22 caliber bullet has a high caliber of quality.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#137 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 21:51:20
I disagree, Hugin.  If one is conservative in the application of government, then that will by definition limit one's approach to all of these subsegments of political though that you mention.  It is a generalization yes, and it can easily be argued that you can define people to absurd levels of detail using the words liberal and conservative.  I'm liberal when it comes to mayo, conservative on the mustard.  That intricacy needlessly muddles a process which is already too daunting for most people to completely grasp.

The definitions of the words are simple.  The words you put before or after them don't matter much, whether they be words like fiscal, social, judicial, or words like politically, morally, ethically.  I doubt the understanding of the political process would be helped much by defining a candidate as fiscally liberal, structurally conservative, judicially liberal, socially liberal, morally conservative, ethically conservative, and politically a Republican.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#138 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 21:52:51
Jeet ignores the fact that it's okay for "liberal" to mean both "not very limited" and "characteristic of a person with liberal political leanings" in the same sentence.  It's also okay for me to say that a .22 caliber bullet has a high caliber of quality.


Witness me not ignoring this "fact" - doesn't a person with liberal political leanings mean a person with political leanings toward a government that is not very limited?  I fail to see your point.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#139 by chris
2004-01-29 21:56:06
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.cerebraldebris.com
This thread took longer to self-destruct into petty haggling over word definitions than I expected.

-chris
#140 by Duality
2004-01-29 21:56:44
Dualipuff@yahoo.com http://stratoscape.ath.cx/
#123 Jibble
When you are unemployed, nothing should be beneath you.  Any job, regardless of how you view yourself through your rose colored glasses, should be good enough for you.

Quite the opposite, for me.  I refuse to do contracting work because I haven't the faith in my skill that you do your own.
#141 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:57:07
#138 UncleJeet
Witness me not ignoring this "fact" - doesn't a person with liberal political leanings mean a person with political leanings toward a government that is not very limited?  I fail to see your point.

See previous example or just read this answer: Not always.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#142 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:57:44
#140 Duality
Quite the opposite, for me.  I refuse to do contracting work because I haven't the faith in my skill that you do your own.

Even data entry temp work is contracting work.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#143 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 21:58:01
It's my fault.  I called Bush a liberal, and so I take full responsibility for the current state devolution in the discussion.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#144 by Jibble
2004-01-29 21:58:59
That's already been cleared up.  Bush has a "liberal" leaning because he likes to spend a shit-ton of money.  What it's spent on doesn't affect that a lot was spent.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#145 by Duality
2004-01-29 22:00:06
Dualipuff@yahoo.com http://stratoscape.ath.cx/
The way I've always defined liberal/conservative policy (and as Shadarr touched on), is that liberal policies benefit the community, while conservative policy benefit the self.

Which I think is kind of skewed because of my liberal political bias.  That's more or less how I've gathered it through various sociology classes.
#146 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 22:00:12
Jeet ignores the fact that it's okay for "liberal" to mean both "not very limited" and "characteristic of a person with liberal political leanings" in the same sentence.

See previous example or just read this answer: Not always.


Huh?  So now you're saying that what you said a minute ago is not always true or....huh?  Please make sense.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#147 by Jibble
2004-01-29 22:02:24
I thought I was making my point clear, but for those among us who don't seem to be catching it, here's the Jibble's Notes version:

Liberal doesn't always mean the same thing.

If I had to choose between the '80s classics "Beat Street" or "Breakin'" for a prestigious award, I'd probably have to go with the latter, since its sequel introduced the mind-shattering concept of marrying *electricity* with the boogaloo.
#148 by Duality
2004-01-29 22:04:40
Dualipuff@yahoo.com http://stratoscape.ath.cx/
#142 Jibble
Even data entry temp work is contracting work.

You're absolutely right, and I would not be against doing it in the least.  It would pay bills.  The reason I try to focus on finding actual tech jobs is because that is what I enjoy doing above all else.  But perhaps I am going about it the wrong way.
#149 by Bailey
2004-01-29 22:04:47
Jeet, it's a simple concept. Put the barrel in your mouth, tie the trigger to the doorknob, and call your fiance into the room. Everyone wins.

Life without shame.
#150 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 22:04:50
Then tell me different things that it can mean.  Your previous example was nothing more than using defining the word as an adjective, then using that adjective to describe a noun.  It wasn't a seperate definition....

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#151 by LPMiller
2004-01-29 22:05:35
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
The traditional meaning of conservative is Little to no government in your life - government as the Distant Father, if you will.

Traditional, true liberalism meant not that goverment was interfering in your life, but that it was more involved - goverment as Father Knows Best, but without being a dick.

Nobody today is true to either of those ideals.

I believe I can fly......urk.
#152 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 22:06:23
Jeet, it's a simple concept. Put the barrel in your mouth, tie the trigger to the doorknob, and call your fiance into the room. Everyone wins.


Yeah, yeah.  If I cared enough, it'd be interesting to pull a Joker and start posting under a new name just to prevent the automatic kneejerk reaction to any post I make.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#153 by Charles
2004-01-29 22:06:33
www.bluh.org
I'll define liberal without using an example.

Liberal is someone willing to go for change, while conservatives like the status quo.  Liberals are usually on the side of change, while conservatives want everything to always stay the same.

-chris
#154 by Shadarr
2004-01-29 22:07:08
shadarr@yahoo.com http://digital-luddite.com
I would define liberal political policy as progressive, and conservative as either resisting change or actively regressive.  I agree that Bush is not conservative in his fiscal policy, but he's not liberal either.  What he represents is a new kind of politician, who is actively trying to destroy the middle class and create a new age of feudalism.
#155 by Duality
2004-01-29 22:07:55
Dualipuff@yahoo.com http://stratoscape.ath.cx/
#149 Bailey
Jeet, it's a simple concept. Put the barrel in your mouth, tie the trigger to the doorknob, and call your fiance into the room. Everyone wins.

What if he ties it to the side of the door that swings in?
#156 by UncleJeet
2004-01-29 22:08:35
Finally!  Someone uses dictionary.com properly!

But back to jibble, I want to hear your multiple definitions of liberal.

I'm fighting terrorism by playing violent video games!
#157 by chris
2004-01-29 22:08:38
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.cerebraldebris.com
I thought she was his wife now?

-chris
#158 by Hugin
2004-01-29 22:08:49
lmccain@nber.org
Jeet, you can cling to a blanket definition of the terms if you like.  But history and present reality show clearly that approach to be ineffective in examining the political stances or political life of most notable figures.  In other words, saying Bush is suprisingly, even shockingly fiscally liberal is a useful and interesting notion to examine.  But claiming then that "Bush is a liberal" is not useful, not factually accurate, and really kind of dumb.  Life is more complex than that.  It's like the (depressingly huge) number of folks who cannot for the life of them get past "Taxes bad" as the summation of their understanding of Federal budget and tax policy.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Clear Our Your Desk -- We've Got Apu Now

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (3) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]