I had a Sligo townie accent, and I tried to adapt a British-y accent. I ended up with something happily neutral though a tad effete. The townie accent would be a working class one, for lack of a better term. Eventually I moved to Dublin and ended up with something verging on an American accent because of American friends and nerds in general. When people started asking me if I was American all the time I started trying to change to a general "culchie" accent and at this stage it's just a bit of a mess Ireland has a surprisingly large array of accents for its size, there's probably one for each county. >> ^messenger:

Very curious to know what place's accent you had, and what place's accent you changed to. Your profile says Ireland. Was it a specific county?>> ^lampishthing:
I did the same thing, actually. There are accents which are identified with stupid all over the world I remember making the conscious decision in primary school one day: "I don't want to sound like that.">> ^messenger:
FWIW, Stephen Colbert grew up in South Carolina, and changed his accent as a child. He talks about how he understood that the local accent was shorthand for stupid, so he chose to speak with a standard American accent from childhood. He talks about it here: http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-on-60-minutes around the 9:45 mark.

>> ^zombieater:

So, basically his idea is that these people don't know actual work or hardship and that these poor humble corporations (as if they're actual people) are the saviors of our modern world. What bullshit.
Here is my response.
Even if you work one or two jobs, it wont make much of a difference because workers' wages are at an all time low and corporate profits are at an all time high. That destroys his "work hard and win" argument right there for the majority of Americans.
Since 1980, corporations have started to take their profits and reinvest them and buy out competition instead of increasing the pay for their workers (that's in the link too). Basically, screw over the working class and benefit the upper class.


Apparently in order to protest in this country we have to actually become a third world police state. I say we protest BEFORE that happens.

My point is in the end, it doesn't matter what the gov't spends borrowed money on in the slightest. I get what you're saying, but the wars, corporate subsidies, etc. happened regardless if you borrow money specifically for that, or don't borrow money and raid the Social Security trust fund. Assuming said wars and corp subsidies happen regardless, which is better, borrow sooner by not raiding the Social Security trust fund which is heading for insolvency anyway and pay more interest, or borrow later by raiding the Social Security trust fund. It doesn't matter once you're headed for a path of unsustainability. Even if Social Security lasted another several decades, it was headed for insolvency. And once the federal government headed for unsustainability, does it matter which folds first - social security or the rest of essential gov't programs? No.

If you raid the trust fund as a tactical mechanism in conjunction with other policies to make the federal gov't and Social Security solvent, it's a smart move because you'll save some interest by not borrowing as much money, or paying down already existent higher interest debt. That's sorta my point - the gov't reversed course under the Bush administration and didn't do that. That's the real problem here, not raiding the Social Security trust fund. Even making some allowances for needing a deficit during the recession, and revamping for intelligence and military apparatus to fight the war on terror, it didn't stop there with keeping the Bush tax cuts, the prescription drug benefit, and opening an unnecessary war with Iraq. But we can agree to disagree.

But honestly, the question about if it was right to raid the Social Security trust fund is moot in the context of this discussion because even without borrowing against the fund, the Clinton administration still ran surpluses during his second term. Republicans, desperate to prove Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, try like heck to say he didn't, but he did.

"But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while...

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

The Clinton Administration ran a surplus, period.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I couldn't disagree more. First of all, interest was still being paid on that same debt. The mechanism of using the social security surplus to finance the general fund was to purchase interest bearing treasury securities with the payroll tax. Now, people like you talk about those securities as though they aren't bonds at all and that interest isn't owed on that debt. That's the problem. The working class bought into a higher tax rate under the auspices that it was a retirement savings plan. Now public perception is robbing them of their interest because of Clinton's biff. If the payroll tax contributes interest-free to costly wars, corporatist subsidies, and theocratic pandering, then fold it into the progressive income tax and we can have a real conversation about paying our fair share.
You can probably smell that I'm a progressive, and thus would be inclined to support the Clintons. I just think this was one move where Reagan's scheming scored one for his team.

@heropsycho

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, interest was still being paid on that same debt. The mechanism of using the social security surplus to finance the general fund was to purchase interest bearing treasury securities with the payroll tax. Now, people like you talk about those securities as though they aren't bonds at all and that interest isn't owed on that debt. That's the problem. The working class bought into a higher tax rate under the auspices that it was a retirement savings plan. Now public perception is robbing them of their interest because of Clinton's biff. If the payroll tax contributes interest-free to costly wars, corporatist subsidies, and theocratic pandering, then fold it into the progressive income tax and we can have a real conversation about paying our fair share.

You can probably smell that I'm a progressive, and thus would be inclined to support the Clintons. I just think this was one move where Reagan's scheming scored one for his team.

Occupy isn't fighting the security state. It is fighting the corporate state that is enforced by the security state. Occupy, as I see it, would not have a problem with political coercion so long as it was upholding the right values. As they see it the state is defending the corporate interests rather than the interests of its citizens. Corporations try to convince us that they are one and the same and they do so with much greater success in the USA than anywhere else. Occupy is represents Marx's proletariat while those who oppose Occupy are either the bourgeoisie or think that they are the bourgeoisie. To paraphrase John Steinbeck, most Americans don't consider themselves working class (which of course they have to be by definition) rather they think of themselves as embarrassed millionaires.

Had to stop at "if you go back to 2008 before the recession". Really? What crazy universe were you in that the recession hadn't hit by 2008? The rest of us working class were well aware shit was hitting the fan way before that. Mostly thanks to your precious upper class rich douchebags.

>> ^Deano:


I think the smart answer from you would be to accept I'm not going to type hundreds of names out for you. That's not a real answer or proof. Your response is disingenuous.
We're going with our knowledge of what this demographic is. Note I've never said or claimed that footballers are universally "dumb". I said they aren't especially bright. I have said and will always maintain they certainly are not the smartest slice of the population. And by the way going back to the video, Mitchell is clearly taking the piss. It is a comedy program with exaggeration a key component.
"Thick people can't handle school"? I think there's a huge number of educationalists would argue that one. Provision levels and equality of opportunity along with socio-economic factors play a huge role. Footballers from poor working-class families more often find themselves excluded from progressing in the educational system and it's not always because they're "thick". In London I know the debate re the lack of educational achievement in boys linked to the decline in male teachers. You cross that with the race issue and it's even more complicated.
Ah now you're going with my definition of football intelligence? Well that's what I've been driving at. They're good at football. They know how hard to strike the ball, when to time a run, how to employ gamesmanship. They have good spatial awareness. You could now start to talk about different kinds of intelligence. But that's a bloody complicated area. I would however continue to separate football smarts from intellectual ones and general life skills.
You're right, having good advice on hand is advantageous. But some footballers are smarter than others. Tevez for example might be the dumbest, or unluckiest, guy in the game. Mostly the infrastructure is already in place for these guys. Word of mouth is important. I would love to know whether they would make more or less if they didn't employ representation. It would be interesting to know wouldn't it? I suspect it would take a huge amount of balls at a young age to do it yourself or entrust mum or dad.
I never intended to claim Klinnsman's diving was dumb, merely that I note it as a low light of his professional career. I saw him play once and he was excellent in what was really a workmanlike Spurs team.
I'll call it a draw with Barton. I don't know if you're calling me dumb but yes he is an unpleasant thug. He's a moron who's been unable to learn from his mistakes. Guess who's got the most yellow cards for QPR this season?


Of course you're not going to type out hundreds of names and that wouldn't be enough anyway - that's my point. I could name clever footballers - including ones who have a reputation for being dumb (Frank Lampard) - which would be pointless too. It's all anecdotal, it's basically meaningless.

I'm not sure what point you're making with regards to education, "it's not always because they're 'thick'" seems to be agreeing with me.

I didn't mean to say you're dumb, I was referring to Barton's thug past implying that he isn't a genius. Getting most yellow cards isn't necessarily bad, he's a tough tackling midfielder so it's his job to throw himself about (and getting a booking is clever if it stops a goal!). I took your comment about Klinsmann diving to mean he's stupid, sorry about that.

It's certainly complicated and the socio-economic and race issues you touched on only make it more so. In fairness, I don't know. You make good points and you aren't falling into the trap that bugs me, the idea that British footballers are barely capable of tying their shoe laces (or putting on their own bibs ... oh!). I expect they are above average, a bit, but you make good arguments for them being a bit below average.

This clip is from Mock the Week, there was a Franky Boyle bit about the England team writing their own song (this is the best I can find: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpbvF1dESFY&feature=related ). I know this is exaggerated for comic effect but for me, people saying that or laughing at that are the thick ones. Comic exaggeration of an already at-best exaggerated opinion is brainless.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Deano:

How many names am I supposed to give you? Is there a specific number that should convince you? Put it like this ff you were mining the wisdom of crowds they'd be the last crowd you'd go with.
A lack of education, also known as ignorance and poor critical thinking is linked to lack of comprehension and the wider phenomenon of stupidity.
You're incorrect about intelligence being a differentiator on the field. The number characteristic coaches look for is attitude. Players with an intense competitive desire and a controllable amount of aggression WITH talent are the ones who make it.
Off the pitch, being able to make smart decisions about contracts, sponsorship is where you'd be right. Actually maybe that means Beckham is a genius and I'm totally wrong! Or maybe he's well advised.
I always admired Klinnsman in that regard. If you forgot the diving you might recall he sorted out his own contract and only hired a lawyer and an accountant. The value of an education there is that you actually eke out a bit more money over the long term.
As for Barton his propensity for violence suggests he's not the poster boy for the football intelligentsia. I know he's been working via twitter to build a different kind of reputation but I'm yet to be convinced. It's amazing what you can cut and paste on the web.

I'd like over 50% of footballers, that would convince me. It's all anecdotal otherwise. The last crowd I'd go for would certainly not be footballers, it would be unemployed, ex-convicts who left school early because it was too hard for them.
Again, while a lack of education is linked with stupidity, this is because the reason is often that thick people can't handle school. Leaving school for a lucrative career is very different.
The characteristic that coaches look for is being a good player and more intelligent people will generally be slightly better. You mentioned this yourself - footballing intelligence. That's not a separate part of the brain, that's good old intelligence, along with experience on the pitch. If you have 2 players with equally intense competitive desire, controllable aggression and talent, the smarter one is the one who will pick better passes, position themselves better, concentrate better, be a better player.
Klinsmann is far from the only player who did his own contracts but then that's not really relevant - having good advisers might be the intelligent choice; if they get you 30% more and take 15% then they're worth hiring. Also, frankly, diving is intelligent given how pathetically advantageous it is.
You can add being a thug to Barton's rap sheet and that is pretty dumb. Whether he's just copy and pasting from www.NietzscheForDummies.com we don't know but even if he was, this would require a greater understanding of the world than British footballers are given credit for.


I think the smart answer from you would be to accept I'm not going to type hundreds of names out for you. That's not a real answer or proof. Your response is disingenuous.
We're going with our knowledge of what this demographic is. Note I've never said or claimed that footballers are universally "dumb". I said they aren't especially bright. I have said and will always maintain they certainly are not the smartest slice of the population. And by the way going back to the video, Mitchell is clearly taking the piss. It *is* a comedy program with exaggeration a key component.

"Thick people can't handle school"? I think there's a huge number of educationalists would argue that one. Provision levels and equality of opportunity along with socio-economic factors play a huge role. Footballers from poor working-class families more often find themselves excluded from progressing in the educational system and it's not always because they're "thick". In London I know the debate re the lack of educational achievement in boys linked to the decline in male teachers. You cross that with the race issue and it's even more complicated.

Ah now you're going with my definition of football intelligence? Well that's what I've been driving at. They're good at football. They know how hard to strike the ball, when to time a run, how to employ gamesmanship. They have good spatial awareness. You could now start to talk about different kinds of intelligence. But that's a bloody complicated area. I would however continue to separate football smarts from intellectual ones and general life skills.

You're right, having good advice on hand is advantageous. But some footballers are smarter than others. Tevez for example might be the dumbest, or unluckiest, guy in the game. Mostly the infrastructure is already in place for these guys. Word of mouth is important. I would love to know whether they would make more or less if they didn't employ representation. It would be interesting to know wouldn't it? I suspect it would take a huge amount of balls at a young age to do it yourself or entrust mum or dad.

I never intended to claim Klinnsman's diving was dumb, merely that I note it as a low light of his professional career. I saw him play once and he was excellent in what was really a workmanlike Spurs team.

I'll call it a draw with Barton. I don't know if you're calling *me* dumb but yes he is an unpleasant thug. He's a moron who's been unable to learn from his mistakes. Guess who's got the most yellow cards for QPR this season?

>> ^Quboid:

I like the line "who apparently are both billionaires and brain-dead". It bugs me that footballers are labelled thick, as if you have to be thick to get paid well over £1,000,000 a year. I know Mitchell has no interest in football, but he's a bright guy and I'm pretty sure he meant this sardonically. He's got to know better, even if much of the general population falls for this cliché.
Of course some footballers are thick, but on the whole, I'd guess top footballers are on average more intelligent than most.
The reason they aren't hated is because they're not responsible for wreaking the economy.


I can only speak from my knowledge of English football but most footballers aren't especially bright. To earn large amounts of money in the game you have to be good at football and many are, apart from Charlie Adam. Most skipped further education and signed on with professional clubs at a young age or flitted around until they failed to make the grade.
Regardless, their working class backgrounds probably meant there wasn't much of a history of outstanding educational achievement. As soon as the talent is evident the desire to balance sporting and academic achievement evaporates.

I have no idea why you'd think that "top" footballers would be more intelligent on average. Than whom? The entire population? I'd guess their football intelligence is better.

Even the foreigners are capable of acting like twits. Apparently Bendtner's got off today on vandalising cars with Lee Catermole, Meanwhile Ricardo Fuller was sent off over the weekend for violent conduct (again) which his manager labelled "stupid" and my favourite player Balotelli indulged in a series of pretty dumb stunts all season long. They all earn incredible amounts of money and don't act in a way that is consistent or respectful of the rather sweet lifestyles they've landed.

Yes it's always silly to generalise but as a group they don't veer towards smart cookie territory. For example I give you David Beckham, the popular Joey Barton and possibly the most inept in the brain department Wayne Rooney.

oh the sweet irony.
santorum is playing this working class crowd like a pro.
the crowd which most likely benefits from their union negotiated retirement and health plan yet now view unions as somehow being the antithesis of the working class and bad for the average worker.

oh how easy it is to manipulate those with none of that fancy "learnin".

If our government was truely interested in generating income,the simplest way would be to tax the profits of stock transactions to start,and tarrifs for all these imported goods we no longer generate to make sending manufacturing overseas less attractive. Taxing the rich at a comparable rate to the working class will help tremendously as well. Taxes are on PROFITS-that's what is left over once the expenses of creating that profit are paid-so no whining how the poor billionaire is getting robbed. The difference can be made up in volume...more people capeable of spending money because they have jobs means more profits in any case...China may have super cheap labour,but they pay their taxes to China,not America. Eroding the middle class tax base seems as clever to me as Wile E Cyote sawing away at the cliff holding him up,and pointing this out to him makes him saw defiantly faster. Until he falls.

Capitalism could work if our government's corporate masters realize they have a vested interest in providing livings for their workforces. A worker who appreciates a good job will go that extra mile to promote that company willingly,to the benifit of all. This short term nonsense of using bailout money to reward the top tier of executives with incentive money is rank madness,high treachery and ultimately self destructive. A pity whatever puppet we elect will just continue the sad dance whomever gets in.

Its why I'm voting for Goldman Sachs in November. They are already running the place,and they may value me as an exploitable resource even after I cast my vote. They can't be worse than these clowns running about now.

Point is the Greek working class has to pay and their only mistake was to have a job.

>> ^doogle:

Disgusting. You're not hired by the state to turn against it. You don't like the retirement plan? Learn another trade where you can sit on your ass all day waiting for an incident.


Typically in these cases the state is reneging on a contractual obligation.
I get that it's a "good" job from a financial and employment standpoint, but this isn't CEO's making 500x what the average worker does.
Fireman also enjoy the added perks of pulling shattered corpses out of wreckage and generally risking their lives on a much more frequent basis than you and I.

What is disgusting is "austerity" measures that keep chipping away at the working class, while the current economic shitstorm was caused by the financial industry, who still haven't been held accountable. I dig that these guys aren't taking it like sheep.
I'm kinda impressed by those cops tho too.

the federalist papers should be mandatory reading in high school.
at least then students would understand the fundamental discussion about federal government vs states rights.

while i agree with some of ron pauls positions and respect his steadfastness concerning issues i cannot in good conscience support someone who admires the infantile philosophy of ayn rand so much as to name his son after that sociopath.

at face value ron pauls schtick sounds all well and good but when you come to understand just how far right and out of touch his policies actually are you should become wary..veeery wary of the ideals he proposes.

you think you are a slave now?
you aint seen nothing yet.
welcome to the united states of corporate america.
because in ron pauls world the government would become an anemic entity that would have no punch to stop the absolute takeover by corporations.
the entire working class would become enslaved by a system where money became speech.

oh wait......

Some of that may fit under a "detestable" umbrella...>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

What about:
working - workers and the work they do, labor struggles, working class heroes, job anecdotes, labor law and history, labor strikes and protests, sweatshops, ows, the 99% etc.
?