Editorial On Intel and Their $7B White House Affair

[Xzibit]

I was speaking to the polarizing politics gripping our nation right now and how a lot of us (myself included) fall victim to it. It is NOT a reference to the thread as a whole, or the thread at all actaully beyond my part in it. I'm well aware of the international representation here. I don't need a reminder. That doesn't change the facf we should try to do better: politics are not a blank check for poor behavior.

USA has always been like this. Now with new media it gets amplified. TV News, Newspapers, E-media and social media spit out their partisan view on politics and more of the population are watching "Entertainment partisan News" then ever.

Yes, we could always do better and politics shouldn't be a excuse for bad behavior nor anything else for that matter ---> Blue vs Red (CPU) and Green vs Red (GPU) debates come to mind and those have a tendency to escalate just as much here even if they are entertaining at times.

I was about to agree until I did some searching and came across this...
President Obama Visits Intel: CEO Paul Otellini Announces New U.S. Investment and Jobs

This actually isn't the first time POTUS and Intel had a little pow-wow yet, I don't think TPU covered that. So this is something TPU is going to start covering in the future or was it just an excuse to get political? If the former, that's grand (just keep the editorial stuff out); if the latter, please don't. And to be fair, similar events likely unfold when Intel/AMD/TSMC/Samsung open fabs in other countries. I would like to hear about those too. Fabs are the cornerstones of technology and, to be honest, we don't hear enough about them.

It was a well covered event in the media.

Artist’s rendering of the $5 billion new chip manufacturing facility and support buildings to be built at Intel’s site in Chandler, Ariz. The new factory, designated Fab 42, will be the most advanced, high-volume semiconductor manufacturing facility in the world. Construction is underway and is expected to be completed in 2013.

Intel has confirmed it is leaving vacant a massive new multibillion-dollar computer-chip factory in Chandler that President Barack Obama once touted as a symbol of the future of U.S. manufacturing.
No employees are working in the facility, known as Fab 42, which was completed late last year and was to bring 1,000 jobs and a $5.2 billion company investment.

 

[R-T-B]

USA has always been like this.

As a native of Washington state, it seems far worse as of late in at least my neck of the woods.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Liberal state. How do you think the conservative states have been doing the past 8 years? Protesting isn't big in conservative states but they do tend to speak with their money. They bought a lot of guns, ammo, and trucks (Peterbilt literally sells trucks without engines and they'll install an engine you bring to them that is pre-emissions compliance)--all of the variety Obama administration were talking about or successfully banned. I think there would have been a lot more symptoms of conservative upheaval had the House not turned Republican in 2010 and state legislatures being mostly in Republican control (some 30+ states repeatedly sued the administration over Obamacare).

The liberal brain is more prone to conflict (conservative would rather avoid it) so I don't think the reaction to the landslide election is particularly surprising. It'll die down over time.


Remember, USA went to war over liberal (North)/conservative (South) ideals during the Civil War. This feud has existed since George Washington said two terms was enough. It's based in human psychology and sociology. These same conflicts exist in all governments to varying degrees. It is the most pronounced in the USA because the nation is massive, populated, and diverse. Trying to unify the political ambitions of wilderness Alaskans with a life-long New Yorker, there's going to be a lot of conflicts.

 

[Xzibit]

As a native of Washington state, it seems far worse as of late in at least my neck of the woods.

Its a Democratic state and the country has trended Republican with President, Congress and House lately.

Remember when Obama took office, Congress and House were Democratic but it didn't seem worse for Democratic states did it?

I live in a Democratic State (California) as well but I don't see it worse i just see it as it didn't go the states way and news, entertainment and such reflect that as it does when it goes the states way. I wouldn't put my own state sentiment and apply it to the nation either.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Liberal state. How do you think the conservative states have been doing the past 8 years? Protesting isn't big in conservative states but they do tend to speak with their money. They bought a lot of guns, ammo, and trucks (Peterbilt literally sells trucks without engines and they'll install an engine you bring to them that is pre-emissions compliance)--all of the variety Obama administration were talking about or successfully banned. I think there would have been a lot more symptoms of conservative upheaval had the House not turned Republican in 2010 and state legislatures being mostly in Republican control (some 30+ states repeatedly sued the administration over Obamacare).

The liberal brain is more prone to conflict (conservative would rather avoid it) so I don't think the reaction to the landslide election is particularly surprising. It'll die down over time.


Remember, USA went to war over liberal (North)/conservative (South) ideals during the Civil War. This feud has existed since George Washington said two terms was enough. It's based in human psychology and sociology. These same conflicts exist in all governments to varying degrees. It is the most pronounced in the USA because the nation is massive, populated, and diverse. Trying to unify the political ambitions of wilderness Alaskans with a life-long New Yorker, there's going to be a lot of conflicts.

This is all true, except I'd disagree that the North was liberal and South conservative. Everything else is basically spot on. Hard to call the party of Lincoln liberal then or now really, unless you redefine the terms to mean differently from today vs. then.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

As a native of Washington state, it seems far worse as of late in at least my neck of the woods.

It has, just look at protests and things like Berkeley and other crazy protests and violence, and as Gt90 said liberals are the one doing all the protesting and pretty much always have they are community organizers by nature it seems. That is why it's ironic to us conservatives that "free speech" is so heralded by liberals when it applies to what they say, but you apply it to a conservative, gay Jewish guy named Milo Yiannopoulis who simply wants to do a speech at a liberal campus in California (Berkeley) and the liberal protesters literally shut him down and proceeded to set the campus on fire...huh? Yeah, in 3 weeks of Trump you have more protesting/rioting/chaos by the left than we had in 8 years caused by conservatives under Obama. True for much of the time Republicans were winning at lower levels but for several years Obama had both congresses and many state governments as well as many liberal judges on the court to back up whatever he did...still during those 2-3 years of him and his side marching his agenda with little challenge by the relatively few Republicans in power you didn't hear much about any protests by conservatives, and it's not like the media wasn't looking for any example of violence/riot/protests my side might have done because they wanted to hold them up as examples of racists, bigots, and violent ones at that. However despite their bias to WANT to find conservative unrest etc there was very little of it, as I think GT90 correctly points out it's just not how conservatives operate generally they find other more productive and less destructive ways to fight for their values and agenda etc.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This is all true, except I'd disagree that the North was liberal and South conservative. Everything else is basically spot on. Hard to call the party of Lincoln liberal then or now really, unless you redefine the terms to mean differently from today vs. then.

Actually, it is. The first modern (conservative) Republican was Calvin Coolidge. Lincoln fought for liberal ideals (equality for black men) where the south just wanted the status quo to remain (very conservative position). When push come to shove, the south didn't protest, they grabbed their guns and claimed what was theirs (a very modern Republican reaction).

Another example (also prior to Calvin Coolidge) is Theodore Roosevelt (a then-Republican) and the National Park system. It's Republicans today that to, for example, convert a lot of federal land (now a national park) in Alaska to private use. It's the Democrats that resist that notion.

The parties have reversed. That's why I think it's pretty disingenuous for Republicans to champion that they are the party Lincoln. Lincoln would be a moderate Democrat today. Hell, Lyndon B Johnson (Democrat) practically mirrors Lincoln in that regard. And let's not forget that Lincoln ordered Americans to kill former Americans. He shouldn't be trumpeted as a hero. He failed at diplomacy and his administration marked the end of states' rights (another anti-modern Republican thing) which is a travesty we're paying for today. For example, the federal government shouldn't have the power to force something like Obamacare on the states. The only reason why it is still around is because the Supreme Court has stretched the "commerce clause" beyond the breaking point.


Edit: Coolridge's election result (backwards, innit?):

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Err....I see what you're saying dude but I think you still got your historical perspective a bit "off", even liberal democrats don't claim Lincoln as "theirs" all they say is the whole party switching over time thing you mention. But I also disagree that the modern liberal Democrats are FOR freeing the blacks not from slavery but inequality etc, that's fucking bull. That is what is said in public and what they have played off as, but in truth, true conservatives are for blacks and for everyone to succeed. So yeah, I like a lot of what you've said before, but I disagree with much of what you're saying, fancy charts and all. Also very few people of any stature I've ever seen would put down Lincoln in any way or claim he isn't a hero regardless of whatever flaws he had.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Also many of states Coolidge lost/won have flipped in many elections for Dems or Repubs in every election including this last one so yeah, north vs. south is mostly flipped but many many exceptions so if anything all that map proves is we were much more polarized exclusively in that election then now and inbetween I'd argue.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Err....I see what you're saying dude but I think you still got your historical perspective a bit "off", even liberal democrats don't claim Lincoln as "theirs" all they say is the whole party switching over time thing you mention. But I also disagree that the modern liberal Democrats are FOR freeing the blacks not from slavery but inequality etc, that's fucking bull. That is what is said in public and what they have played off as, but in truth, true conservatives are for blacks and for everyone to succeed. So yeah, I like a lot of what you've said before, but I disagree with much of what you're saying, fancy charts and all. Also very few people of any stature I've ever seen would put down Lincoln in any way or claim he isn't a hero regardless of whatever flaws he had.

Don't believe me? Believe Doris Kearns Goodwin. She's literally thee Lincoln history alive today (e.g. they consulted with her for making the Lincoln movie).

Also many of states Coolidge lost/won have flipped in many elections for Dems or Repubs in every election including this last one so yeah, north vs. south is mostly flipped but many many exceptions so if anything all that map proves is we were much more polarized exclusively in that election then now and inbetween I'd argue.

Realize that USA was very different in the 1920s and 1930s (mostly rural). The modern political map came later as population centers grew. Coolidge was just the first POTUS you could associate with Republicans today. He believes much the same as they.

Paging through Wikipedia, it looks like Bill Clinton's 1992 election established the political landscape we mostly see today (the beginning of severe polarization--when the west coast turned Democrat):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

 

[dalekdukesboy]

I think you're not free from being fallible. Also the "Lincoln movie" is hardly where I'd go to get truth to historical perspective. Sorry this isn't about disbelief as much as I think you've distorted history, including modern history claiming modern libs are for blacks and modern conservatives are not for blacks. Sorry not buying that. Next you'll tell me to watch the Kennedy movie made by Oliver Stone as the ultimate source for all historical things Kennedy...yeah, nuff said. Also "Don't believe me? " is hardly a way to defend your words, that is basically claiming no one can argue anything you say or the degree of it as if you are infallible whatever facts you base your opinions on and almost implying omnipotent ability. No disresepect to you and no worries here, but sorry friend stand down just agree to disagree.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You clearly didn't read it. Lincoln loved government; modern Republicans don't; at most they tolerate it. Lincoln literally seized the south by force. That's something modern Democrats love doing (e.g. Obamacare) and Republicans hate. Modern Republicans are more closely aligned with Jefferson (anti-Federalist/state rights) than Lincoln.

 

[Xzibit]

Lincoln freeing the slaves was a means to an end (keeping the union/territories together). He was willing to give up his views on slavery (not extending slavery to the territories and ultimately having to free them to help out) to win the war which he thought was the overall good for the people.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The South wanted to extend the status quo west (South states have slavery and North states do not). Lincoln refused to extend slavery into new territories and his election effectively triggered the South secession (the South will be overruled in Congress because the new territories will vote against the South). He felt his presidential duty was to reunite the states so off to war the North went to bring the South back in. Because the Civil War was fundamentally about slavery and each side went into their respective corners, who won the war definitely would mean freedom or slavery going forward after reunification. There would be no line drawn in the sand anymore; the matter would be settled forever. As the North pushed South, they freed the slaves they came across. A marching army can't do anything for slaves except unchain them and it also had the effect of further crippling the South's economy (no labor to tend the fields).

There was a pretty easy path to preventing the Civil War: pass a Constitutional amendment that says the federal government shall make no law in regards to slavery.

 

[Xzibit]

It wasn't out of the kindness of his heart for slaves nor African Americans. That's why he refers to Emancipation Proclamation as a War Measure.

He never saw them as equals nor worthy of regular stature or politics as his speeches note.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,”

Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia”

Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.

 

[TheMailMan78]

The South wanted to extend the status quo west (South states have slavery and North states do not). Lincoln refused to extend slavery into new territories and his election effectively triggered the South secession (the South will be overruled in Congress because the new territories will vote against the South). He felt his presidential duty was to reunite the states so off to war the North went to bring the South back in. Because the Civil War was fundamentally about slavery and each side went into their respective corners, who won the war definitely would mean freedom or slavery going forward after reunification. There would be no line drawn in the sand anymore; the matter would be settled forever. As the North pushed South, they freed the slaves they came across. A marching army can't do anything for slaves except unchain them and it also had the effect of further crippling the South's economy (no labor to tend the fields).

There was a pretty easy path to preventing the Civil War: pass a Constitutional amendment that says the federal government shall make no law in regards to slavery.

Your history is a touch off there Ford.

 

[Xzibit]

Your history is a touch off there Ford.

The North had Slave-States (Border-States) Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. The EP only applied to rebelling states.

Lincoln didn't want to touch slavery because it would have fracture the Union. He didn't have an issue with the Corwin Amendment. Which would have made slavery legal an untouchable by the Government (irony, was to be the 13th amendment)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The Corwin Amendment was too little, too late. Congress would have had to propose it at the beginning of the Buchannan administration, not the end.

Speaking of which, Maryland actually just rescinded from the Corwin Amendment in 2014. Kentucky and Rhode Island are the only two states that still have it ratified.

 

[Serpent of Darkness]

The evolution of the conversation is fascinating... First it was about news relating to the current president and Intel. That lead to the politic which shouldn't be on here, but the TPU gods haven't condemn the progression of the conversation. It followed with the Trump fanboys and the online Trump Protection Unit (TPU) with their comment. Towards the end it evolved into a history lesson. Are you member going to toss religion into the mix? Can we just let this conversation die and disappear like a bad rash someone got after sleeping with some chick who looked pretty at first because a lot of beers were consumed but they came to realize that she is super super ugly; I intentionally did a run-on with no commas with the intent of sounding funny. Ha ha! /sarcasm disabled.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Thanks a lot, VSG. There was definitely a hard, thin line to try and thread here

You failed on that point.

This is a TECHNOLOGY site. Keep the fraking politics and your narrow-minded viewpoints out of it. Ok? Thanks!

 

[Ahhzz]

You failed on that point.

.... and your narrow-minded viewpoints out of it. Ok? Thanks!

and yours is better?

 

[lexluthermiester]

and yours is better?

Notice how you skipped right over the "This is a TECHNOLOGY site. Keep the fraking politics and" part of my statement. Hmm..

 

[Ahhzz]

Notice how you skipped right over the "This is a TECHNOLOGY site. Keep the fraking politics and" part of my statement. Hmm..

Yep. Intentional. I was just pointing out rudeness in either only insulting other's points of views, or the slightly more rude assumption that your points of view aren't just as narrow-minded.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yep. Intentional. I was just pointing out rudeness in either only insulting other's points of views, or the slightly more rude assumption that your points of view aren't just as narrow-minded.

Thank you Mr Obvious. What seems to have escaped YOU is that my rudeness was ALSO intentional. The views expressed in this so-called "news article" come off as little more than trash journalism and have no place on TPU. Why it was approved for publishing in the first place is somewhat dubious and troublesome as TPU has a hard earned and well deserved reputation for objective, unbiased tech news reporting. It needs to stay that way. Leave the political, agenda based crap-flinging to the trash "news" sites.

On a personal note, I couldn't care less about your pathetic, pedantic, pithy comments. However, they are good for a laugh. So please do continue.

 

[The Jedi]

Thanks Raevenlord for what I felt was a challenging and informative, even-handed editorial. Thanks for not being hyper-liberal like every other tech writer out there. I read and hear so much anti-Trump stuff which is so misinformed or deliberately distorted, that I'd think I'm living outside the U.S.