shanen's Journal: Final visit to /.?

The following comment was prepared in response to a new article about IBM. Then I was notified it could not be posted due to excessive bad posting. That is pure and simple BS. In fact, I have have not posted from this part of Japan for over a week. Not sure how it was done, but basically sure it was more moderation abuse by the anonymous Bushevik trolls. Being an effective spokesman for positions they dislike, their goal is to censor me if possible. My karma had just recovered to Excellent from the last round of BS moderation. So what the devil are the /. "editors" being paid for if they can't tell the difference between use and abuse of their own moderation system?

In response, I have already visited digg and kuro5hin, though I don't like either of them too much... The kuro5hin system is minor, and digg is technically narrow, though it runs very quickly.

The comment:

First I better include the disclaimer that I'm in the IBM 'food chain', and I also own some IBM stock (as well as shares of a number of high tech companies).

My own belief on this is that that IBM is an unusually ethical company, though (I feel) there has been an increasing focus on stock prices over the recent years. I think that is a mistake. Now they say 'shareholder value.' They used to say a company was in business to make money. Wrongo and again awrongo. A business is in business to STAY in business. Of course profits help, but that's not the purpose or objective.

If you buy my premise that IBM is unusually ethical, why are they getting so much rapid heat in comparison to the very slow boil on such totally unethical companies as Enron and SCO? I think it is actually a reverse version of political pandering, and the real reason is because IBM doesn't encourage any political donations. That sort of neutrality has become an issue.

I'm sure that some of the Busheviks out there are going to jump up with the official talking point that both parties are corrupt and money grubbing, Jack Abramoff and all the other evidence notwithstanding to prove the bias of the big money. I certainly agree that the Democrats are able to raise some money from companies, but I think there still a difference there. The Republican donors see their donations as investments. In the most extreme case, Dubya's largest donor was Enron, and they hoped that investment was going to keep them above water. In contrast, Democratic donors are sometimes principled, or they may see their donations as 'insurance'. Even when they do see those donations as investements, you can argue that long-term investments in the balance of powers are the best way to make the system work--especially when you see how quickly the system is breaking down as the balances are dismantled.

In conclusion, I think the focus on IBM is because they have been sitting on the political fence. This is becoming a big no-no.

Don't get down

[Philip K Dickhead]

We'll miss ya', if ya do.