@ChaosEngine you said "why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?"

Was that your question that I was supposed to answer? My answer is: that's a sexist question.

I know you fucking love bold type, so I thought that might help to get through.

So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?

I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.>> ^ChaosEngine:

Question: why do we need to promote science to women?
More broadly: why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?
What are we losing by not having female scientists?
Shouldn't we be trying to encourage people to do a) what they're good at and b) what they're interested in and c) what is useful?
Note: I am not arguing against more women in science, I'm arguing against people doing jobs they're not suited for after being taken in by a slick marketing campaign.

Question: why do we need to promote science to women?

More broadly: why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?

What are we losing by not having female scientists?

Shouldn't we be trying to encourage people to do a) what they're good at and b) what they're interested in and c) what is useful?

Note: I am not arguing against more women in science, I'm arguing against people doing jobs they're not suited for after being taken in by a slick marketing campaign.

>> ^shole:

A Finn here too. \o/
There's a few tiny nitpicks in the video;
-There's no standardized testing at all.
Only test one could call standard would be the entry exams to universities, and other higher tier schools.
It's one exam (per field of study) you do and put a list of schools you want to get into, in order of preference.
Which brings me to an important omission;
-All universities and vocational schools and others are free.
It's kind of implied by 'public', but just to make it clear.
Pass the entry tests and you're good. (lower level graduation required)
This brings a lot of foreign students in too.
There's also a set amount of financial support in exchange for course credits, well enough for several degrees.
It's always mindblowing to think that families save up for tuition.


The matriculation examination at the end of gymnasium (i.e. the high school equivalent we have) is definitely a standardized test, since it's the same for every school and graded on a national level. Just because you can pick and choose the subjects you want to do doesn't change that fact.

A Finn here too. \o/
There's a few tiny nitpicks in the video;
-There's no standardized testing at all.
Only test one could call standard would be the entry exams to universities, and other higher tier schools.
It's one exam (per field of study) you do and put a list of schools you want to get into, in order of preference.

Which brings me to an important omission;
-All universities and vocational schools and others are free.
It's kind of implied by 'public', but just to make it clear.
Pass the entry tests and you're good. (lower level graduation required)
This brings a lot of foreign students in too.
There's also a set amount of financial support in exchange for course credits, well enough for several degrees.
It's always mindblowing to think that families save up for tuition.

@NetRunner: It's not about poor people being able to go to college. It's about everyone having access to immense amounts of (borrowed) money with which to go to college. Universities are like businesses: they like money. Even if they're not stockpiling cash or being 'for profit', they like money. They like to tear down their old buildings and build new expensive ones so that they can get on the covers of magazines. They like to hire prestigious faculty. They like to get money, and they like to spend money.

Even if their fixed maintenance/faculty/staff/utility/etc costs are "low" (which I'd dispute, but even putting that aside), they will always find ways to spend money, and since they continue to have record enrollment rates even with tuition hikes, they'll just continue to raise tuition (and, yes, perhaps hire more professors) until demand stabilizes.

I usually yell at people for going all 'herp derp supply/demand', but that's really all it is here. It's about as simple a case as you can have. I am not trying to make the case that poor people should not be able to go to college. I don't know what the solution is.

I know that at least my state has a law putting a cap on yearly tuition rate hikes, and the universities raise the tuition by exactly that much every year. Making those requirements tighter might help matters a little. A campaign to tell high school students that it's okay if they want to do a vocation instead of a 4-year university degree might help a little. A boom of new accredited universities springing up on every idyllic hill might help by creating competition, but that is not something that can happen quickly enough to save what really is a runaway higher education system.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker: The only change with student loans since Obama has become president is that they've removed the middleman. The government was already requiring that certain people be able to get loans of certain values. The government was already guaranteeing these loans to the banks (they were NO RISK to the banks. The government would pay if the student defaulted, and the banks still got to collect the interest, from the government when subsidized and from the student with not). The only change is that the government gets the interest now instead of a bank that puts up no risk--this saves a lot of money.

So, the government simplifying the student loan business has not contributed to the tuition inflation, because there's not any extra loan money available--it's actually harder to get money (beyond the basic loans) now, from friends' experiences.

Tuition inflation is a huge problem, though, and it's definitely due to the fact that with loans now "anyone" can afford to go to college, and even with jacking up the prices there are record enrollment rates. This does need to be addressed. It's not because of Obama, though.

It is because a lot of people think a college degree is supposed to be job training--I'm sorry, it's not, unless you're getting an engineering degree. A liberal arts or humanities degree is not worthless, though. It's an education. In the US, a college degree is supposed to give you an expanded knowledge, context, and understanding for the world (this is why college graduates come out as liberals). This may help you in a job, but that's not its primary goal unless you're looking for a job specifically in that field.

So part of the problem is that everyone wants to get a four year degree now, because they think it's the only way they'll ever get a job, even when they have no intention or desire to work in a cubicle like most 'requires any 4 year degree' jobs. There ARE other forms of higher education, though. There are community colleges and trade/vocational/technical schools. In fact, Obama has explicitly said that he thinks some (many? most?) people should be going to those instead of four year schools.

That said, the way forward in the world for the US is an educated population. There is just not that much more call for unskilled labor (that Americans will do) here. Even in manufacturing, while we still produce an immense amount of goods, so much of it is made by machines in the US that those numbers aren't reflected in manufacturing employment. Building/selling/maintaining those machines is where manufacturing jobs go when it cranks up here, and that requires skill.

And here's Obama's actual quote:

Obama, Feb. 24, 2009: And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option.

Sounds like godless liberal elitism to me. Slow down there Lenin H. Rockefeller

http://factcheck.org/2012/02/college-kills-faith/

I grew up in Finland and went to school there. Yes, some kids were bullied and none of the teachers ever noticed some of that. It didn't happen in the school, but when I was on the second grade n(elementary school), I definitely had two biys bullying me for a while. After school ended and we had to walk home, they'd follow me, push me around, scare the crap out of me. I was the only child and very quiet, timid, easy to scare.

Those boys really scared me, I remember just running off and grabbing the arm of a woman walking home from the store, to make the boys think I knew her. It eventually got bad enough that I just refused to go to school. My mom didn't understand what was going on, and she threw a frigging fit that scared me even more. But still, I refused to go to school.

Eventually it all came out. I eventually talked to my parents, and my mom came to observe this after one schoolday. She grabbed the kids when they started attacking me and scared the crap out of at least one of them. He was nice after that, he just said 'please don't tell my parents, I didn't know I was really scaring her!" My dad went to talk to the other bullys parents on one night, and they had no idea he was doing that. My parents had a talk with my teacher too. I was left alone after that (and luckily thye worse kid actually moved away before too long). It wasn't anything too bad, but at that time, it was awful. Some kids maybe just not realize what they are doing. And the parents really had no idea.

Teaching kids bullying is bad should really start at a young age. You have to make them realize what they nare doing is wrong, and how wrong it can be.

On junior high we had a girl who me and my friends made fun of. We thought it was just a 'fun' thing to make comments about her hairdo, or things like that. We were still 'friends' with her, but I bet she hated us. I myself never realized that little comments like 'your hair looks like a sausage roll', even when made in a 'friendly way' hurt her.

I didn't even realize that until I was way older! If I could go back in time, I'd never make those comments! We all thought we were just being funny, but little things like that can also hurt. I am not sure how one could deal with things like that, but we all should just be taught that little things can hurt. It doesn't have to be pushing and hurting, it can be just silly little remarks, and I know I will feel bad about all that for the rest of my life!

Bullying of even that kind usually stopped (mostly) after people graduated from Junior high, and went to either highschool, or vocational school. I went to highschool, so I have no idea how life in a Finnish vocational school is (we were told horror stories though, that vocational school woulod be really bad and everybody was being bullied to death, but I think it wasn't true, or at least not today).

To me watching American TV shows about high schools, and seeing kids bullying, being bullied and so on, was awful. To me, high school was a whole different planet. Kids were trying to be nice, or at least more adult-like, and bullying wasn't there. At least according to the TV shows, High school is bullying heaven! And all about cliques! Maybe because we really didn't have jocks or cheerleaders, it was better? No drama clubs, glee clubs.. You might have bene classified as a 'nerd', or a 'good girl', but at least not too many peoiple were outcasts in my school. And if they were, it was because of their personality, not because of what they wore or were interested in.

It really breaks my heart to know kids are bullied so bad they feel like the only way out is to kill themselves.

People will need to care more, to put themselves in anothers' shoes. When you are a kid, it can be hard. But I think it should start from the home, and schools should try to do whatever they can. People just need to understand how it feels, and how you'd feel if somebody did that to you, or to your loved one.

Excuse the rant, my dog has gotten me up at wee hours (around 4:30am, though this morning she graciously let me sleep until 5:15am) every night for quite a while and I am seriously lacking sleep and can be emotional and/or weirdy irritated and grumpy, not to mention insane.

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.

Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.

In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.

I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.

The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).

I look forward to your reply.

Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.

2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.

3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.

4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).

6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?


In reply to this comment by ptrcklgrs:
Sorry I didn't respond. I got a few replys and missed yours.

My first question is what is your PHD in.

My comment on that is, I dropped out of college. I didn't see a use for it. College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.

IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit. The rest are because Mommy or Daddy is famous. George Bush Jr didn't diserve to go to Yale. He got in because of who his dad was.

I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book and we had to buy it new. He would also sign the inside cover so people couldn't use the same book twice. If we didn't it would effect 5% of our grade. He was a greedy little shit.

Which is why Tenure is corrupting our Education system. I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers. I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.

Florida got rid of tenure, and you can search and read the benefits it has had on the children.

If you use College as a Vocational (Trade) school it still works. But I have alot of friends who have degrees in Communication and Physical Education who are having a hard time finding jobs and don't understand why. And I feel bad for them.

Art History majors. We are simply graduating 100x the amount of art history majors then there are jobs in art history.

I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:

^When replying to comments like this, I think it is useful to put my answer in context with my own experience.
My wife and I both recently finished our PhDs. We went to top ten institutions. As a graduate student, I received numerous awards, over 20 peer-reviewed publications, and outstanding letters of reference. I am telling you this to establish that I am a competitive candidate.
After graduation I had a temporary position, while working there I searched for a job. I applied to several jobs and fellowships, etc. Although I consistently made it to the final cut, I did not get an offer right away. Long story short, it took me a year to find a job.
My wife has been searching for a job for over a year. She applied to jobs at Safeway, Whole Foods, etc. to make ends meet. However, once they find out she has an advanced degree they toss out her application. Most industry positions require 2+ years industry experience. Hence, she can't get labor jobs because she is too educated, and she can't get industry jobs because she does not have industry experience.
Do you see the problem? And, I am sure we are not the only people who are struggling. In summary, I think reductive and simplistic rants like yours are naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

crickets???

In reply to this comment by ptrcklgrs:
Sorry I didn't respond. I got a few replys and missed yours.

My first question is what is your PHD in.

My comment on that is, I dropped out of college. I didn't see a use for it. College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.

IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit. The rest are because Mommy or Daddy is famous. George Bush Jr didn't diserve to go to Yale. He got in because of who his dad was.

I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book and we had to buy it new. He would also sign the inside cover so people couldn't use the same book twice. If we didn't it would effect 5% of our grade. He was a greedy little shit.

Which is why Tenure is corrupting our Education system. I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers. I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.

Florida got rid of tenure, and you can search and read the benefits it has had on the children.

If you use College as a Vocational (Trade) school it still works. But I have alot of friends who have degrees in Communication and Physical Education who are having a hard time finding jobs and don't understand why. And I feel bad for them.

Art History majors. We are simply graduating 100x the amount of art history majors then there are jobs in art history.

I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:

^When replying to comments like this, I think it is useful to put my answer in context with my own experience.
My wife and I both recently finished our PhDs. We went to top ten institutions. As a graduate student, I received numerous awards, over 20 peer-reviewed publications, and outstanding letters of reference. I am telling you this to establish that I am a competitive candidate.
After graduation I had a temporary position, while working there I searched for a job. I applied to several jobs and fellowships, etc. Although I consistently made it to the final cut, I did not get an offer right away. Long story short, it took me a year to find a job.
My wife has been searching for a job for over a year. She applied to jobs at Safeway, Whole Foods, etc. to make ends meet. However, once they find out she has an advanced degree they toss out her application. Most industry positions require 2+ years industry experience. Hence, she can't get labor jobs because she is too educated, and she can't get industry jobs because she does not have industry experience.
Do you see the problem? And, I am sure we are not the only people who are struggling. In summary, I think reductive and simplistic rants like yours are naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

Sorry I didn't respond. I got a few replys and missed yours.

My first question is what is your PHD in.

My comment on that is, I dropped out of college. I didn't see a use for it. College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.

IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit. The rest are because Mommy or Daddy is famous. George Bush Jr didn't diserve to go to Yale. He got in because of who his dad was.

I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book and we had to buy it new. He would also sign the inside cover so people couldn't use the same book twice. If we didn't it would effect 5% of our grade. He was a greedy little shit.

Which is why Tenure is corrupting our Education system. I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers. I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.

Florida got rid of tenure, and you can search and read the benefits it has had on the children.

If you use College as a Vocational (Trade) school it still works. But I have alot of friends who have degrees in Communication and Physical Education who are having a hard time finding jobs and don't understand why. And I feel bad for them.

Art History majors. We are simply graduating 100x the amount of art history majors then there are jobs in art history.

I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:

^When replying to comments like this, I think it is useful to put my answer in context with my own experience.
My wife and I both recently finished our PhDs. We went to top ten institutions. As a graduate student, I received numerous awards, over 20 peer-reviewed publications, and outstanding letters of reference. I am telling you this to establish that I am a competitive candidate.
After graduation I had a temporary position, while working there I searched for a job. I applied to several jobs and fellowships, etc. Although I consistently made it to the final cut, I did not get an offer right away. Long story short, it took me a year to find a job.
My wife has been searching for a job for over a year. She applied to jobs at Safeway, Whole Foods, etc. to make ends meet. However, once they find out she has an advanced degree they toss out her application. Most industry positions require 2+ years industry experience. Hence, she can't get labor jobs because she is too educated, and she can't get industry jobs because she does not have industry experience.
Do you see the problem? And, I am sure we are not the only people who are struggling. In summary, I think reductive and simplistic rants like yours are naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

Dgandhi man, thank you!

The entire reason Statism & the whole idea of Bureaucratic Public Officers [like Police, Judges, Senators, Representatives, and Presidents] controlling your life for the "good of the public" are idiotic is because of the inherent conflict trying to equate violence with good faith.

Healthy & meaningful agreements aren't forged by threatening violence against an someone.

And then people wonder why cops have PTSD and Judges lie thru their teeth without remorse.


@bareboards2
Which is why it's frustrating that most of society complains about these problems but still support the bureaucratic system of violence that enables them.


>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Now come the cop unapologists
As an unapologist I do have to say this does bring up interesting questions, like "Should this even be a profession?"/"Can we trust people to do something like this long term if we know it breaks them in the process?".
I fully knowledge that the sort of policing that most western countries have is better than many that they could be compared to. Clearly police could be better funded, equipped and trained, but I wonder if there is a fundamental problem with the vocation as envisioned that requires a radical redesign to address the problems that exit in liberal democracies, problems that apparently effect both the officers and society at large.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Now come the cop unapologists

As an unapologist I do have to say this does bring up interesting questions, like "Should this even be a profession?"/"Can we trust people to do something like this long term if we know it breaks them in the process?".

I fully acknowledge that the sort of policing that most western countries have is better than many that they could be compared to. Clearly police could be better funded, equipped and trained, but I wonder if there is a fundamental problem with the vocation as envisioned that requires a radical redesign to address the problems that exit in liberal democracies, problems that apparently effect both the officers and society at large.