Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? 370
theodp writes to mention a C|Net article about Chinese President Hu Jintao's historic first visit to the U.S.. The catch is that his first dinner won't be at the White House. It will be at Bill Gates' manse. From the article: "The approximately 100-person guest list is a who's who of the U.S. Pacific Northwest power elite, including Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz and Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire, said event organizers. The guests will undergo strict security checks before entering Gates' lodge-style, 66,000-square-foot home overlooking Lake Washington with a reported seven bedrooms, six kitchens, 24 bathrooms, a domed library, a reception hall and an artificial estuary stocked with salmon and trout. Gates and Gregoire are expected to introduce and welcome Hu, who will then offer a toast in front of the gathering."
It's all down to relevance ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Figures (Score:1, Insightful)
Talk about nouveau riche (Score:2, Insightful)
Animal Farm (Score:5, Insightful)
"Gentlemen," concluded Napoleon, "I will give you the same toast as before, but in a different form. Fill your glasses to the brim. Gentlemen, here is my toast: To the prosperity of The Manor Farm! "
There was the same hearty cheering as before, and the mugs were emptied to the dregs. But as the animals outside gazed at the scene, it seemed to them that some strange thing was happening. What was it that had altered in the faces of the pigs? Clover's old dim eyes flitted from one face to another. Some of them had five chins, some had four, some had three. But what was it that seemed to be melting and changing? Then, the applause having come to an end, the company took up their cards and continued the game that had been interrupted, and the animals crept silently away.
But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Forty years ago, Nixon invented the policy of engagement to balance the dangerous Soviet Union against an equal dangerous but hungry Communist China.
Ten years ago, with the Soviet menace defeated, Bill Clinton invented the complete sell out. Slave made goods have flowed into out country, jobs and money have flowed out. Parallel to this was born the myth of the "information economy" where the US would own ideas and the rest of the world would do our bidding because of it. Of course, for this ownership to be complete, it must apply to our own citizens. To enslave others, we must first prove our dedication to ruling by enslaving ourselves.
You can draw a straight line to today, with the DMCA, Patriot act and rampant domestic spying from a tremendously expanded federal government. As the rich and powerful gateher in Redmond, ask yourself where the rhetoric of freedom has gone and why your boss is dining with a Communist. What in the hell are we doing?
China isn't reall communist (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh boy, here we go.... (Score:1, Insightful)
A friendlier "Communism" (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly we should petition for greater freedoms in mainland China and in particular for the rights of imprisoned [ethanzuckerman.com] journalists, political opponents, and religious leaders. Still, considering how terribly China's citizens suffered under previous incarnations (Mao) of the present post-Tiananmen regime, I'm optimistic for the future. I believe the Party will continue on its path of liberalization as a younger, more cosmopolitan generation of Oxford- and Columbia-educated Chinese accedes to power. Who needs revolution, after all, when you can build democracy from within?
How the worm has turned (Score:2, Insightful)
Big business is evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Most innovation and growth comes from small and medium companies. Large companies exaggerate the power of economies of scale because being nimble is more important in a fast changing world. Big biz survives by bullying smaller companies, not by doing the job better or being more efficient. Anybody who has worked for a big company knows that they are inharently disfunctional.
American car companies didn't grow bloated and slow because of lack of foreign competition, but because of a lack of domestic competition, ei. smaller but more car companies. Japan's auto makers grew competitive because Japan had about 12 car companies before going overseas.
Big businesses should be split, or at least mergers above a certain size should curtailed. Most mergers result in a net loss of profits. The only reason they still happen is because of a select few who make big bucks off such deals and the ego power of being big.
Re:geek pres (Score:1, Insightful)
The Indian prez and prime minister (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ladies and Gentlemen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nordic-style welfare capitalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
That was the best post in this thread (Score:3, Insightful)
Related to that, everyone, and I mean everyone - liberal & conservative alike (including libertarians
Free markets (Score:3, Insightful)
Legislation and governmental action is not needed unless that specific entity has been playing unfairly by being anti-competitive or predatorial.
I agree that smaller companies tend to be more innovative, but larger companies have their place as well. Large companies allow for mass production, thus lower costs and more savings to the end consumer. This means they are (usually) a more efficient producer in the marketplace.
American car companies grew bloated and slow for two reasons. The first was due to union stagnation. The second was because the US DOT heavily regulates the auto industry thus creating a higher barrier to entry and effectively limiting competition.
And about regulation, big business LIKES big government. Think about it. When the government has the power to regulate the market, it creates regulations, red tape, legislation, and other obstacles that smaller and medium sized businesses cannot afford to participate in. Think drug companies. It takes over $1 BILLION (USD) to release a new drug, most of which is due to FDA regs. Thus, the only people who can participate are larger companies with deeper pockets; smaller firms are excluded.
And you are wrong about how big business survives. Some survive on their own free-market merits. Others however, and this is unfortunately becoming more and more common, survive to due influence in legislation and a bloated far-reaching government.
If the US government were limited and allowed the free-market to naturally self-regulate, like the US Constitution originally set forth, we would all be in a better situation now.
Re:Oh boy, here we go.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not against social services to a point. At the cost of inflating government, I'm against it. You just can't give out handouts because people will expect them and rely on them. People have to - absolutely have to - learn how to fish on their own.
I want better things in life and I am willing to do what it takes to get there. Plenty of people (a relative I have) have a sense of entitlement, spend their money on negative assets then complain how expensive everything is, and continue to not have anything.
You have to start some somewhere. Saving for your first $300K starts with your first quarter that you don't put in the candy machine/video game.
Re:Who is better? President Bush or Gates? (Score:4, Insightful)
MBA's aren't intellectuals. The intelligence required to get an MBA, even somewhere like Harvard, is a fraction of the intelligence required to get into Harvard as a technical major. Given that Gates has shown both far more intellectual capacity than Bush, technically, as well as having been orders of magnitude more successful as a businessman, I find your point to be positively silly.
If you call opposing the creation of a race of subhumans bread only for their stem cells to be anti-intellectual then I hope we have more of it. You are intellectually dishonest.
Who exactly is proposing creating a race of subhumans breed for their stem cells? Do you have a good grasp on how the technology works? The stem cells come from disposed fetuses (which are about as human as a piece of steak), and it is the cells that are cultured, not the fetuses.