News Stories

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Explain. What did they get incorrect about China this time?

(1) It is not a "ban/guideline" per se, it is more or less a remark in a report by the Broadcasting Bureau that gives a breakdown of the TV dramas projects that they have green-lit or rejected. I am not familiar with the system so I am not sure if you should read between the lines and effectively consider it to be a regulation, or you simply need to more careful and do not cross some lines. So I might be the naive one here.

(2)CNN reports

New guidelines issued on March 31 discourages plot lines that contain elements of "fantasy, time-travel, random compilations of mythical stories, bizarre plots, absurd techniques, even propagating feudal superstitions, fatalism and reincarnation, ambiguous moral lessons, and a lack of positive thinking.

Any reader of CNN will read "fantasy" and "time travel" as parallel in the sentence structure as the "random compilation......ambiguous moral lessons", where in fact, all the latter part were a clause used to quantify the "fantasy" and "time travel" that they have rejected. If you read CNN's article, you will think anything with any bit imagination is eliminated, but in the very same Bureau Report, it actually mentioned that one SciFi series was green-lit.

(3)In the same CNN article

“The government says … TV dramas shouldn’t have characters that travel back in time and rewrite history. They say this goes against Chinese heritage,” reports CNN’s Eunice Yoon. “They also say that myth, superstitions and reincarnation are all questionable."

This has no source at all. This is certainly not in the Bureau report. Who said it and where? Since it is in quotations, should I take them as the words actually said by some Chines official or are they speculations by this Eunice Yoon based on (2)?

(4)Other than (2) and (3) above, the rest of the article pretty much is the CNN author trying to play with the idea with "China banning time travel" and have some fun and creativity with the known series deals with time travel. In other words, it comes with the "not-to-be-taken-as-factual-statements" tag.

(5)In fact, you should also question what they didn't report. In the same Bureau Report, there is another remark, which says "The number of proposed TV-series on criminal investigation is increasing. So we remind you a certain 2004 regulation is still effective. All organizations should seriously consider the market risks and avoid investing blindly". (I paraphrase "a certain 2004" part, the original is more specific about the detail of the regulation.)

For me this looks more serious, since it actually quotes rules. More importantly, series about criminal investigation tends to be more related to corruption, abusing power, etc. They are actually serious trying to cut down on it. So why didn't CNN reports on this? Why did it focus on the "time travel"?

To summarize, while the CNN article contains some interesting facts, it is out of context, exaggerated. It translation is not as literal as it should be, the source is shaky, and half of the article is fiction. There is a reason it is in the blog section instead of the news section.

There is no secret that the Broadcasting Bureau is notorious for all the propaganda and its censorship of everything. That's more the reason for a reader to be critical of what he reads, but in this case, CNN is obviously want to be light on the fact and more geared toward creating a sensation.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Is the exaggeration part about "limiting" rather than "banning"?

Though I am wondering if the CCP learnt anything from the Green Dam or Grass-mud Horse incident a few years back.

That's how ridiculous they can be. On the other hand, if a person think they are going to be green-lit shows like Koihime, then he is just deluding himself. I actually a vague guess of a show they rejected (One involves the main protagonist time travel back to the era of the first emperor, sleep with every woman he can get on his hands, and be the main force in conquering China. At least that's what I get by reading the first couple chapters and hearing from friends. Not really that strange in the anime world, probably. But I wonder if it will go very well if you just change the setting to the US and swap in George Washington and the war for independence. )

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I think you don't get the implications. So, in easier to understand words just for you. If you support what is going on in this chart, you are basically begging to pay even more taxes (unless you are super wealthy). If that is what you want, then I'ld like to compliment you for being so generous with your money (I doubt there will be many like minded people as generous as you though)

No, I'm not wealthy far from that and my expense due to tax is of non-consequential.

But I see that you are a zero-sum thinker (as well as that internet expert), in that case, I concede. I'm not going to try to change your faith. GL.

But let me tell you that if you think central planners can outsmart those rich bastards, you are wrong.

PS: oh stupid me, of course most people are zero-sum thinkers!

[SeijiSensei]

New guidelines issued on March 31 discourages plot lines that contain elements of "fantasy, time-travel, random compilations of mythical stories, bizarre plots, absurd techniques, even propagating feudal superstitions, fatalism and reincarnation, ambiguous moral lessons, and a lack of positive thinking.

Guess they won't be showing Twelve Kingdoms or Saiunkoku Monogatari in China any time soon then.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by iLney

No, I'm not wealthy far from that and my expense due to tax is of non-consequential.

But I see that you are a zero-sum thinker (as well as that internet expert), in that case, I concede. I'm not going to try to change your faith. GL.

But let me tell you that if you think central planners can outsmart those rich bastards, you are wrong.

PS: oh stupid me, of course most people are zero-sum thinkers!

Newsflash: central planners are rich bastards

[iLney]

Not as rich^^.

But anyway, I find it funny that wolves are entrusted with sheep, always. And when things go wrong, the solution is "find better wolves."

Oh well.

[MrTerrorist]

Frustrated Justin Bieber 'pulled into' Israel politics

(mocked surprise):I'm shocked! The Israeli Prime Minister using JB as a political tool? How shameless! May the wrath of a million Bieber fans haunt the PM.(mocked surprise over)

Anyway, your thoughts about this.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Frustrated Justin Bieber 'pulled into' Israel politics

(mocked surprise):I'm shocked! The Israeli Prime Minister using JB as a political tool? How shameless! May the wrath of a million Bieber fans haunt the PM.(mocked surprise over)

Anyway, your thoughts about this.

did he take that tour to North korea yet?

[SaintessHeart]

The PM isn't using him as a political tool. He is simply getting him to offer encouragement to the kids who lost their homes to terror attacks.

Those kids are innocent. He isn't doing any good by putting all Israelis together under the banner of prejudice.

Stay in the hotel all you want until you decide to understand others kid. Hopefully a mortar shell into your room that doesn't kill you will change your mind.

[MrTerrorist]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

did he take that tour to North korea yet?

Nope, that thing was a joke by 4chan.

[ganbaru]

U.N. defends role in Ivory Coast Gbagbo ouster
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...73014Z20110414
The french were rather active on this one...

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

A national sales tax or flat tax will make the rich poorer and the poor richer,

I really shouldn't have to explain why that's wrong. This is something that should really be apparent to anyone. First of all, a the wealthy do not spend as much of their income on taxable goods as the poor and middle class. Much of their money is invested, while the poor and middle class are forced to spend more of their income on taxable goods. Not to mention, it would likely hurt the auto industry, the consumer electronics industry, and likely the retail industry as a whole. Further, even if one were to claim they spend about the same amount, a national sales tax is going to be harder on someone making 24,000 a year than on someone making 2.4 million a year. The latter applies to a flat income tax as well. There's a reason most countries in the world have progressive tax rates after all. A national sales tax and/or a flat tax are in effect giving a massive tax cut to the wealthiest members of society, while increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class, and cutting federal revenue in the process. Flat taxes and national sales taxes are the economic equivalent of troll physics.

edit: If I seem more annoyed than usual in this post, it's because I had to retype it several times due to browser crashes.

[flying ^]

here's a fine example of a liberal solution to a problem...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/13...kids-young-11/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/0...-11-year-olds/

[mysterious]

Originally Posted by flying ^

here's a fine example of a liberal solution to a problem...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/13...kids-young-11/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/0...-11-year-olds/

I love how they always say kids should not have sex so you dont have to tell about sex and all those fine details. I guess they didnt know that "kid shouldnt do it" and "Kids will do it if they want it enough regardless of whatever reasons you tell them" are two totally different stories. So they want to prevent them from getting mail order condom because they are too young to have sex? Well they will have sex anyway but without the condom and leave all the newborns for the tax payer to take care of or abortion . It is the same thing with abstinence program teaching in school instead of how to use condom and what not correctly. I wish they make a law that allow you to let your children either receive abstinence only program or how to use birth control correctly program. Then make you responsible for the pregnancy of your children. I wonder how quickly some parents will change their minds

So whoever comes up with this mail order thing have my praise.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by flying ^

here's a fine example of a liberal solution to a problem...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/13...kids-young-11/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/0...-11-year-olds/

But it does work. The switch to abstinence only education under Reagen led to a sharp rise in teen pregnancy. Teenagers are horny little bastards, and are going to have sex whether or not you try to teach them to abstain. However, they are sometimes smart enough to use a condom if they've been properly instructed. It's not even a liberal solution unless you're from the religious right.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

But it does work. The switch to abstinence only education under Reagen led to a sharp rise in teen pregnancy. Teenagers are horny little bastards, and are going to have sex whether or not you try to teach them to abstain. However, they are sometimes smart enough to use a condom if they've been properly instructed. It's not even a liberal solution unless you're from the religious right.

Teenagers: biological units considered "adults" for over 99% of human history. In the last few seconds of that history, we're trying to tell them NOT to do what every hormonal imperative in their body is saying to do. There's whole libraries of analysis of how certain religions try to control the sex drive to rule over and control the people as well.

Collective idiotic duh on those who think directives of abstinence and intentional ignorance are great companions.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It's not even a liberal solution unless you're from the religious right.

Even that is crumbling slowly. Late last year the Pope went on record saying that condoms are acceptable in some circumstances. Granted, it's still a vague position, but it's a step forward.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I really shouldn't have to explain why that's wrong. This is something that should really be apparent to anyone. First of all, a the wealthy do not spend as much of their income on taxable goods as the poor and middle class. Much of their money is invested, while the poor and middle class are forced to spend more of their income on taxable goods. Not to mention, it would likely hurt the auto industry, the consumer electronics industry, and likely the retail industry as a whole. Further, even if one were to claim they spend about the same amount, a national sales tax is going to be harder on someone making 24,000 a year than on someone making 2.4 million a year. The latter applies to a flat income tax as well. There's a reason most countries in the world have progressive tax rates after all. A national sales tax and/or a flat tax are in effect giving a massive tax cut to the wealthiest members of society, while increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class, and cutting federal revenue in the process. Flat taxes and national sales taxes are the economic equivalent of troll physics.

edit: If I seem more annoyed than usual in this post, it's because I had to retype it several times due to browser crashes.

Oh I hate when my browser crashes, so I know how you feel.
It's infuriating when you type a great post then get "page cannot be displayed."

Anyhoo, on to your post:

I've seen the half-truth of "a flat tax will hurt the poor" repeated over and over again and it's no more accurate now than it was in 1861 for the simple fact that its our monetary system that's broken/corrupt, not just the tax system.

Under a non-fractional banking/money system a flat tax would work fine.
The poor don't buy Lambourginis, Multi-million dollar mansions, yachts, rolexs, or Armani suits, the rich do.
A 5% flat tax on goods and services across the country would not hurt the poor, but it would keep the rich from skirting their duty to pay taxes.
Which, according to CNN most of the top corporations in the USA do not pay income taxes.

Thus, the old Marxian heavy progressive income tax is an utter failure under a fractional banking system.


I realize such a low rate as a 5% national sales tax would mean the government would have to...*gasp*...shrink down in size, but that's exactly the problem with our government now.
There are too many programs, agencies, and the military industrial complex.
Why?
Because people can't survive without many of them.
Why?
Because the buying power of the dollar is shot due to inflation.
Why?
Because our money has no intrinsic value, it's fiat money.
Why?
Because we're using a fractional banking system designed to redistribute both power and wealth from the poor to the rich.
That banking system was inplemented in 1913 under the Federal Reserve Act.
The redistribution of power and wealth is done through inflation which (if wages aren't increased in proportion to inflation) forces laborers to work the same hours for what is essentially less pay.
A weaker dollar means the buying power is less and thus if you work for $20.00/hour now and there's inflation of 15%, without a pay raise to match inflation you're now working for $17.00/hour. In addtion to the decrease in the value of your wage, the cost of all goods and services have increased 15% and thus it costs you 15% more to live.
Given enough time, fiat money (and fractional banking in general) will create continued inflationary periods that will cause your workforce to essentially become serfs who can't survive without government aid/entitlements.

Therefore Kamui, you're not wrong per se.
Under the current money system a flat income tax would definitely hurt the poor because the flat income tax rate would have to be somewhere around 15-20%.
However, under the current progressive income tax system, corporations aren't paying taxes, and even when they do they pass the costs down to the consumer.
This is why consumption taxes are more effective than income taxes if your goal is to improve the standard of living of the majority of people.
Tax on income isn't the answer, never was.
Tax on consumption is, but only if the money system is changed and fractional banking is abolished/replaced.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Solace

Even that is crumbling slowly. Late last year the Pope went on record saying that condoms are acceptable in some circumstances. Granted, it's still a vague position, but it's a step forward.

Though the religious right in America is more represented by evangelicals and fundamentalists than Catholics. Still, that's a good step I guess.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Solace

Even that is crumbling slowly. Late last year the Pope went on record saying that condoms are acceptable in some circumstances. Granted, it's still a vague position, but it's a step forward.

Benedict only "justified" the use of condoms as a method of protecting against AIDS. According to the Times, "the one example he cited as a possibly appropriate use was by male prostitutes." In no way did he justify the use of condoms to avoid pregnancy.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Benedict only "justified" the use of condoms as a method of protecting against AIDS. According to the Times, "the one example he cited as a possibly appropriate use was by male prostitutes." In no way did he justify the use of condoms to avoid pregnancy.

I realize that, however it's still progress. That's why I said his reasoning was vague....on one hand he is saying it is good for disease prevention and prostitution, on the other he downplays the contraceptive aspect. Surely he realizes that the entire point of a condom is for sexual purposes, but he has a tight rope to walk in what he says, something I think he learned the hard way from his initial comments about condoms.

Remember that this was a reversal of his previous comment, which was that "condoms make the Aids crisis worse". He's a staunch advocator of abstinence and fidelity through marriage, which is to be expected, but to walk back even some of his statement is a big step for the Church, at least in my opinion.