>> ^shuac:

Life's Too Short, is what you meant.


You are correct sir, what an irritating typo.

>> ^ulysses1904:

I'm always suspicious of nice even numbers that sound like they came from a protest sign rather than from an exhaustive study (50% of America's PHDs are foreign born).
But I don't dispute the overall point.


A few statistics from wikipedia:
-55% of Ph.D. students in engineering in the United States are foreign born (2004).[4]
-Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of Ph.D. scientists and engineers employed in the United States who were born abroad has increased from 24% to 37%.[4]
-45% of Ph.D. physicists working in the United States are foreign born (2004).[4]
-80% of total post-doctoral chemical and materials engineering in the United States are foreign-born (1988).[5]

etc. etc.
Not all the statistics are that bad, though.

>> ^critical_d:

I highly recommend watching "An Idiot Abroad" if you have the chance. Very,very funny.


Totally...it's amazing.

I highly recommend watching "An Idiot Abroad" if you have the chance. Very,very funny.

>> ^hpqp:

Every action has some form of motivation, even a psycho's mass murdering spree; it's all good and fine to look for it, but in the meanwhile it's the protective action that counts, something the police force in GB took ages to do. As for the "bonehead militias", most of them were simply groups of neighbours and friends trying their best to protect their livelihoods. Most of them were immigrants who had worked hard to build a life for themselves abroad, only to find everything ruined because of unruly misguided youths high on violence.
As for blaming the violence on the bad decisions concerning social services, I beg to differ. Look at the protests/riots in Greece, Spain, etc. All of them had major peacefull counterparts, with actual demands being made. It's not like the so-called "disenfranchised youths" (and they were not all poor, nor young btw) of London and elsewhere did not have recent examples of protests that did not involve using social networking to best loot the fashion shop, and burning people's homes (Arab Spring anyone?).
I agree about the ridiculous consummer identity we have going on in society... "you are what you buy" really sickens me to the bone. As does the corporate criminels going on with their billionaire, society-crushing lifestyles. But is it possible to send a more counterproductive message than the one we've seen in England?
p.s.: what's and ASPO?
Judging by the public statements of officials, the "protective action" is bound to overshoot. Like I said, pillories, assembly-line-justice, the calls for harsher sentences, the calls to have the rioters' housing/benefits stripped, the thought of using the military -- civil liberties are put on notice, and that's putting it mildly. Let the rozzers do their job within the regular frame of the law, play it by the book, don't give them any reason whatsoever for another backlash. Take the kettle off the stove. Forcing a lid on the spout will only make matters worse sooner than later.


As for the Greece/Spain comparison, I would like to submit this: UNICEF 2007: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Prior to the economic meltdown, Greece and Spain were paradise for kids, compared to the UK. I wouldn't dare to make comparisons nowadays, not with 40%+ youth unemployment in Spain and Greece. But it's clear that the UK has been growing worse over years and years. The lid was bound to blow someday. I figured it would be mass protests, nonviolent ones I might add. I certainly didn't see it taking the shape it has, but in retrospect, signs were abundant -- and ignored. The alarming streak of suicides among kids in recent years alone should have been more than enough.

These are long-term developments, long-term failures, not just the recent cuts. But they sure as hell didn't help, and neither does the prospect of even more cuts down the road. Small example: youth centers are closed down, so now you have kids bored out of their minds who are not allowed to loiter (see: ASBO).

That's what I meant when I said disenfranchised. The state has been on the retreat since Thatcher, the educational system is focused on testing, intolerance for kids in public places has been on the rise for decades and the social gap is wider than anywhere else in Europe. So the ones who drew the short straw are fucked. And so are their children. And theirs, until the cycle is broken. Look at the UN report, page 22: "Relationships" and page 26: "Behaviour and Risks". That doesn't appear overnight, it's at least two generations of failure. No stable relationships, no communities, no values, no respect, no prospect.

As for ASPOs: that's a typo. Or more precisely, a brain failure, because typing a P instead of a B is not an error I can blame on my fingers.

ASBO or anti-social behaviour order is the tool of choice to stop kids from loitering. Anywhere. The street, the park, the yard, the staircase, you name it. It is the formalized dislike for children in the public space. There are, of course, reasonable uses for it, but in certain areas it is used to harass kids. At least it was, no idea if it still is.

Quasi ein Platzverweis, der keines Anlasses benötigt.

Every action has some form of motivation, even a psycho's mass murdering spree; it's all good and fine to look for it, but in the meanwhile it's the protective action that counts, something the police force in GB took ages to do. As for the "bonehead militias", most of them were simply groups of neighbours and friends trying their best to protect their livelihoods. Most of them were immigrants who had worked hard to build a life for themselves abroad, only to find everything ruined because of unruly misguided youths high on violence.

As for blaming the violence on the bad decisions concerning social services, I beg to differ. Look at the protests/riots in Greece, Spain, etc. All of them had major peacefull counterparts, with actual demands being made. It's not like the so-called "disenfranchised youths" (and they were not all poor, nor young btw) of London and elsewhere did not have recent examples of protests that did not involve using social networking to best loot the fashion shop, and burning people's homes (Arab Spring anyone?).

I agree about the ridiculous consummer identity we have going on in society... "you are what you buy" really sickens me to the bone. As does the corporate criminels going on with their billionaire, society-crushing lifestyles. But is it possible to send a more counterproductive message than the one we've seen in England?

p.s.: what's and ASPO?

>> ^radx:

Unjustifiable as their actions are, calling it mindless destruction by spoilt children does no good in my book. There is a reason, there always is a reason, and I highly doubt it is as simple as it is presented to be in most articles I've read so far. They are criminals, yes, but what's their motivation, what's their reasoning? Without knowing the deeper cause, any actions -- crackdowns as many suggest -- will only suppress the problem for the time being, making a later outbreak all the worse.
Particularly if law enforcement plays dirty, pushes the boundaries of the rule of law -- and the use of billboards and social media by the police as a modern pillory, that's on the fucking edge, if you ask me. If one of those bonehead militias acts upon it, the shit could turn ugly real quick.
Anyway, there's no wisdom, no insight I can claim to have from within the isolation of what is commonly known as the middle class; only impressions and thoughts.
However, the violence cannot come as a surprise, given the unrest last winter caused by a raise in tuition fees; it cannot come as a surprise, given the sheer volume of social cuts, particularly small programs. How can anyone be caught off guard by their blatant disregard of the law given how disenfranchised many of them are, and given how the crooks working in the City of London walked away scot-free after the damage they caused, which was magnitude higher. Who speaks out on their behalf? Politicians? Unions? Seems to me, they're on their own, destined to remain invisible -- until they lash out. They appear to be farther removed from the democratic process than anyone would like to admit. Politics, society, community, whatever you want to call it: they have no stakes in the game.
And how surprising is it, really, to find them looting expensive comsumer products -- you are what you wear, right? It's in your face, everywhere, all the time, particularly in a city like London. So now the folks who were cut off from this just snapped and went for it, no matter the rules? I'm shocked!
As for their treatment by the coppers: are ASPOs still handed out left, right and center in certain districts?
But hey, like I said, I'm too far removed from their reality of life to make any meaningful statements, much less suggestions. Just poking in the dark, that's what this is.

I don't know blankfist well enough to be sure, but I think I should be offended by that remark! I don't think I insulted you.
That's funny that you retract any endorsement, because it seems you repeated most of what I said. The only thing I would argue that you seem to omit is that at this point is that everyone is getting back more than they put in, here and abroad, and there's no way that's sustainable.
What I was looking for, and you completely missed with your assumptions, was for you to re-state your position from
"the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave" to something closer to
" the problems that have destroyed the global economy are unregulated financial BS from the free market, and a preponderance of people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." It seemed like you agreed with that, but then you made a mistaken assumption about me (Umption is still waiting for that apology), and now want to distance yourself from me based on what?
I would say that mandatory paid maternity leave certainly does effect government budgets, or do you think public servants don't have children? If you make it too much of a burden on the employer, and we are the employer, it's too hard on all of us. In some european countries, I was under the impression that the pay came from the state (perhaps that's wrong), making it all government budget related.
That said, I do support manditory maternity leave, I'm just not so sure about manditory paid maternity leave. I do not support 9+ months of paid maternity leave for both parents, and 3 months paid vacation guaranteed, or the other kinds of programs that bankrupted Greece and others. Their debt problem contributed greatly to the latest economic collapse, which exacerbated the debt problem, spreading economic collapse and creating new debt problems. True enough, it was not the sole or even main cause here, yet. It certainly isn't helping matters though.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^newtboy:
...I ask you, why is your mistaken assumption so apparent? I mean ALL those taking more than they give. That certainly includes the rich and corporations, often to a greater extent than the poor (who often NEED the help). In Greece, it does seem to be the populace that's MOST guilty, but I'm certain they are not alone at the government tit.
Gottcha right back. Your assumption was 100% wrong. Apologize to umption now, please.
EDIT: Before you make your next mistaken assumption, I do think deregulation has been a mistake almost every time I've seen it in practice, and I do see it as a major cause of the American 'recession'.
For some reason, you remind me a lot of blankfist.
Europe's debt didn't cause an economic collapse, an economic collapse caused a debt problem. That problem has arisen in countries that didn't have one before (Spain, Ireland), and been made more acute in ones that did (Italy, Greece). I'm not in favor of running deficits when times are good, so I like for government to take in more taxes than it spends, and collect them largely from those most able to pay. If poor people generally wind up getting more out than they pay in, and the rich pay more than they get out, that's a feature, not a bug.
In any case, mandatory maternity leave doesn't cost the government anything. Therefore, it doesn't have an impact on government budgets, here or in Europe.
If you believe something else, that's fine. I retract even the most tacit endorsement of anything you've said.

I've got two perspectives on some of these comments and the video, and thought I'd chime in with some (hopefully not overly longwinded) history / anecdotes:

First, I grew up and attended public school K-12 in Kansas in the 80's and 90's. Overall I am very pleased with the quality of education I received and the teachers I had. From High School, I remember having 3-4 standout excellent teachers, a whole lot of adequate / no-complaints teachers, and 3-4 teachers that I thought were sub-par.

The excellent teachers stand out in my memory because they got me more interested in subjects that I already had some interest in, OR because they made me appreciate subjects that I was otherwise pretty ambivalent about. For example, my math teacher who I studied Geometry, Advanced Algebra, Trigonometry, and AP Calculus with was fantastic. When I was in his classes, I loved learning about math. When I went to University and studied Calc 2 in a lecture hall with 400 other students and teacher-student interaction only with TAs, suddenly math wasn't anywhere near as interesting.

Some of the adequate teachers that I had were probably the favorite teachers of students with other interests. Expecting every teacher to mesh perfectly with absolutely every last one of their hundreds of students per year is probably setting the bar a little unrealistically high. That being said, even though I wasn't completely enthralled with their classes, I think that I got good value from them.

The teachers that I remember as being poor fall into two categories. First are those that taught subjects that I wasn't at all interested in and who did nothing to prompt me to change my mind. I remember hating one of my English teachers because she wasn't impressed with my lack of effort on things like poetry assignments. Looking back, I think that says much more about what I was putting into the class than the quality of that teacher. The other category had teachers that seemed lazy and ineffective, or those whose classes were complete wastes of time -- similar to those that @blankfist described. Most of those teachers were teacher/coaches who, in my point of view, were just phoning-in their teaching duties and only actively interested in the coaching. I still have a bias against sports being included in public school activities due to that type of teacher.


And I also have a perspective from the teaching side of things. I've been living in Thailand for about 4.5 years now, teaching English as a second language. I got a bachelor's degree in Computer Science but struggled finding a job when I graduated (I think I was naively setting my sights too high and too narrow, but thats another story). So, I ended up working as a farmhand on my family farm. That was OK but not really something that I was very passionate about.

Eventually through a family connection, someone approached me about traveling abroad for a year and working as an ESL teacher. I thought that would be an interesting thing to do and a good way to challenge myself, so I flew to Thailand in 2007 and started teaching. The school I connected with put me in as the teacher for kindergarten, which was crazy but fun and rewarding and a good sink or swim introduction to teaching (which I had no prior experience with or education in).

I ended up liking it so much that what was originally just going to be a 1-year experience got extended. I taught kindergarten for 2 years and 1st grade for 1 year. Then there was a big shakeup / administrative disaster at my former school and I switched into teaching High School aged students. Another challenge and something different to get used to, but I am enjoying that as much or more as the younger students.

Being a foreign, native-English-speaking ESL teacher in Thailand is a bit weird. There are lots of really *terrible* foreign teachers that are here to purely to have ready access to cheap beer and prostitutes, and who have absolutely zero interest in the actual teaching; it is just a paycheck. The average salary of a native-English speaking teacher here is about $12,000 a year, which sounds terribly low but is actually a pretty upper-middle class income by Thai standards. For the shitty teachers, it translates into a lot of beer and hookers.

The schools here see foreigners are all fairly identical, easily replaceable cogs. Someone with a master's degree in Education and a real interest in being a good teacher can easily be replaced by a drunken loser that rarely shows up for classes if they don't fall in line with the Thai way of doing things or try to change up the status quo.

I hope that I do a decent job of teaching here. I am confident that I'm way better for my students than many of the drunken backpacker alternatives, but it is dangerous to set the bar that low and get complacent. I'm sure that to a lot of my roughly 800 students this year, I am merely adequate -- not all that memorable but at least not bad either. I know that some of them get a lot out of my classes and I can see them improving in English in leaps and bounds. And I know that there are some on the other side of the coin who are at best ambivalent about me and their English classes in general. My level of motivation prompts me to try my best, but I am too lazy and don't have enough time to throw a whole lot of extra effort at each and every one of my 800 students, most of whom I see for 1 hour a week total.

Anyway, my experiences here have made me appreciate all of my excellent former teachers that much more. Plus, I've learned that anyone that thinks that a teacher in the US is sub-par ought to be thankful that they probably aren't quite as bad as a sub-par "teacher" in Thailand...

@NetRunner: agreed that it's not the worst, nor is my anecdote...

and certainly odd changes in policy and illogical requirements do increase bureaucracy... but i'm not certain that i can agree that there isn't any valid reason for change...

think back through the last 11 years of us elections, in particular the previous three presidential elections... claims of voter fraud, hanging chad, dead rolls, acorn, etc -- now, i don't know if or what impact wisconsin's regulatory changes have on that... but that's the nature of government: we expect incompetence, and success is generally just a fortunate coincidence

from my tale, our overseas missions weren't always as i described... they changed, radically so, post 9-11 -- i used to be able to phone my nation's consular services and be shown respect and have my questions answered... help was given freely and easily, as one should expect

not so anymore - now we're herded in like infected cattle and treated as a possible terrorist - the 'help' has morphed into a hindrance... but are the reasons for such valid? how can we say...

and no, i wasn't dealing with the department of immigration... just my embassy in filing a consular report of birth abroad (CRBA), and those policies have changed recently too... for no apparent reason

i'm an american citizen, not an immigrant - there wasn't one iota of reason to suspect my not being a citizen... and soooo many reasons to accept that i was...

my family came to north america in the early 18th century... i'm tall, blond, and blue-eyed... i speak perfect american english with a non-regional accent... i served my country for six years in the usmc and am a veteran of the persian gulf war... and this is in addition to all the documentation i presented...

instead, i was treated as 'suspect' by a foreign- and indifferent-looking woman speaking to me in broken english... quite rudely questioning ME regarding something i have always assumed was fundamental: my being a us citizen

i guess my point is that videos like this present the particular situation as being 'scandalous' ... when in fact it's commonplace... and while annoying, it's not really insulting -- try visiting a us consular mission abroad and then complain about the bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, and being treated in a demeaning way

honestly, watching the domestic situation in my home country from overseas for the last 15-odd years is amazing... the partisanship is ridiculous, and so are most of their claims -- it's like having your body (the nation) infested with two distinct groups of intestinal parasites--like an old-south, grangerford-shepherdson blood-feud--the attacks from both left- and right-leaning tapeworms have risen to the level of threatening the very health and life of the host

videos and other seeming vitriol like this appear to me as symptomatic of such an unhealthy bent: a bloody feces-laden discharge

Anyone know which bill he's referring to?

He is referring to what I think is the H.R. 1540

With the infamous endless war section 1034.

Here it is in all of it's glorious unconstitutionality.

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

For the Google-lazy, here's what shiny's tattoo-avatar refers to (Rom. 5:1-5 KJV):

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

More proof of trollmanship, along with shiny's username?

@chilaxe


So Gitmo isn't such a bad thing then? I am ok with the idea that we only apply constitutional rights to US citizens, but only if we agree to it before hand not in the middle of the game, or willy nilly apply it to some people and not to others.

But not applying habius corpus in any cases opens to flood gates of potential for that realm to expand.

Though, @NetRunner brought up a point that I hadn't considered yet. That the sooner Osama is/was dealt with, the sooner we can leave that entire area without loosing face in the eyes of the world.

For us that don't like the means, it is the hope of the ends that is all that is left for us, and net provided me with a little hope of perhaps a little brighter future for our boys abroad. Come home soon troopers, it has been too long.

I'm sorry? Which "decade of darkness" are you talking about? Are you going back to the 1982 recession--which has nothing to do with this discussion--just to find a point to defend the Conservatives on? You don't even like them! Even the Mulroney government didn't do all that well balancing the books...--what am I doing? Back then the Conservatives were progressive. It was a different party! It has nothing to do with our current discussion.



"The Liberals inherited a $40-billion deficit from the Conservatives when they came to power in 1993. So, talking today about 10 years of darkness, I don't think it's appropriate. I think it's highly political and I am very disappointed by it."


I will restate:

Being ignorant of the real costs of those warplanes does not make them a defensible purchase.

Get this country back in the black and we can revisit the necessary equipment upgrades that our hard-working folk in the military deserve. For now, putting that gear on the nation's credit card is poor leadership and bad economics.

Until the debt starts going the other direction, I'm firm in my opinion here.

Canada's debt is currently 561 Billion and rising.

>> ^Skeeve:

Actually, no.
While the Liberals under Chretien and Martin took the credit for balancing the budget it was former Conservative finance ministers Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski who undid the financial catastrophe created by the Trudeau Liberals. The Mulroney government's institution of free trade and the GST (as horrible as it is) are what truly balanced the budget. The Liberals, on the other hand, gutted the health care system - rolling back transfers to the provinces - and decimated the military to make short-term political gains with the "military is evil, peacekeeping is teh win" crowd.
There is a lot about the Conservatives I don't like (Matthu pointed out a few good ones) but, as it stands, their policies have ensured Canada has, arguably, the most robust economy in the world and is back on track to have a respectable military (one that is taken seriously abroad, something seriously lacking under the previous administration).
There are big problems with the "Harper Government" (and believe me when I say that I hate that term more than you do) but their stance with regards to the military is the only intelligent one put forward and as close to the best thing for Canada as our problematic system gets.

Actually, no.

While the Liberals under Chretien and Martin took the credit for balancing the budget it was former Conservative finance ministers Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski who undid the financial catastrophe created by the Trudeau Liberals. The Mulroney government's institution of free trade and the GST (as horrible as it is) are what truly balanced the budget. The Liberals, on the other hand, gutted the health care system - rolling back transfers to the provinces - and decimated the military to make short-term political gains with the "military is evil, peacekeeping is teh win" crowd.

There is a lot about the Conservatives I don't like (Matthu pointed out a few good ones) but, as it stands, their policies have ensured Canada has, arguably, the most robust economy in the world and is back on track to have a respectable military (one that is taken seriously abroad, something seriously lacking under the previous administration).

There are big problems with the "Harper Government" (and believe me when I say that I hate that term more than you do) but their stance with regards to the military is the only intelligent one put forward and as close to the best thing for Canada as our problematic system gets.
>> ^notarobot:
Why do you think "the decade of darkness" happened? Could it have something to do with an attempt to dig the country out of the gaping deficit the previous government caused? I wonder.