Re : Attitudes towards America.
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <3C0E5E16...@bellatlantic.net>, ken...@shangrila.net a
écrit :
>> > Typically
>> > both retired people and businesses will run off to the low
>> > tax areas. Normal. NY is generally expensive. Car insurance
>> > is higher than Florida and it costs you several hundred a month
>> > to park you car, safely. She figured that at the same income
>> > she was making well over a $1000 more a month.
>> >
>> There's no connection there, Earl. One can certainly
>> live more comfortably in rural areas of France, rather
>> than inner city Paris.
>
> That's arguable. In general, the inner city is expensive anywhere.
> I am much more comfortable in the suburbs of Washington, D. C.
> than I could ever afford to be in the city itself. It is possible to
> live cheaply in the sticks, too, although comfort and economy are
> not usually compatible.
Big cities are more expensive. Paris is sought as a residence,
2 million live within its walls, but 10 million on the outside
trying to get in. So it is even cheaper in the immediate suburbs
than the city. The well off want to live in Paris and this has
tended to drive the poor our of town. A couple of areas still
have lower income people, but this is a problem in many
European cities.
Because Paris is more expensive, salaries tend to be higher,
even as a civil servant I got a special housing allowance added
to my salary of about $150 a month (not enough but it helped).
>
>> > Europe is generally now
>> > more socially
>> > responsible than America is.
>>
>> If you mean does the average continental European have
>> a sheep mentality, I fully agree.
>
> Mankind generally is sheeplike. Except sometimes, and this
> can get you in trouble.
A moral philosopher would not rank humanism with
sheeplike behavior.
>> > The rich know very well how to take care of themselves and
>> > arrange taxation which benefits them. Why to you think somebody
>> > invented the expression that America is "socialism for the rich
>> > and capitalism for the poor"??
>> >
>> Sounds like an expression you'd invent. <snip>
>
> Here's another: the law is a cobweb for the rich, and like
> steel for the poor.
I did not invent the "socialism for the rich" expression but don`t know
where I read it. I remembered it, however. It came especially to mind
when the taxpayers had to rescue the Savings and Loan Banking system
from the excesses of deregulation.
One of the weaknesses of American culture is its failure to recognize class
structure, class warfare and the consequences of it. It views itself
as essentially "classless". This is why American Universities should have
some Marxist scholars to keep the rest of the academics on their toes.
Economic
determinism is not the whole story, but it is a important part
of the story and can not be left out. I mentioned Angela Davis in another
post. She studied under Marcuse.
Earl
ken...@shangrila.net
Earl Evleth wrote:
> Big cities are more expensive. Paris is sought as a residence,
> 2 million live within its walls, but 10 million on the outside
> trying to get in. So it is even cheaper in the immediate suburbs
> than the city. The well off want to live in Paris and this has
> tended to drive the poor our of town. A couple of areas still
> have lower income people, but this is a problem in many
> European cities.
As cities go, Paris is certainly lovely, and if I wanted to live in
a city, it would be that one. However, I fear that were I to
move there I would simply settle into my little neighborhood
and seldom see the city.
> >
> >> > Europe is generally now
> >> > more socially
> >> > responsible than America is.
> >>
> >> If you mean does the average continental European have
> >> a sheep mentality, I fully agree.
> >
> > Mankind generally is sheeplike. Except sometimes, and this
> > can get you in trouble.
>
> A moral philosopher would not rank humanism with
> sheeplike behavior.
OK, so we digressed a bit. Surely a parisian will have noticed the
great herds of tourists grazing about the place. The behavior of
social conservatives too is quite reminiscent of sheep.
> >> > The rich know very well how to take care of themselves and
> >> > arrange taxation which benefits them. Why to you think somebody
> >> > invented the expression that America is "socialism for the rich
> >> > and capitalism for the poor"??
> >> >
> >> Sounds like an expression you'd invent. <snip>
> >
> > Here's another: the law is a cobweb for the rich, and like
> > steel for the poor.
>
> I did not invent the "socialism for the rich" expression but don`t know
> where I read it. I remembered it, however. It came especially to mind
> when the taxpayers had to rescue the Savings and Loan Banking system
> from the excesses of deregulation.
"Corporate Welfare" also comes to mind.
> One of the weaknesses of American culture is its failure to recognize class
> structure, class warfare and the consequences of it. It views itself
> as essentially "classless". This is why American Universities should have
> some Marxist scholars to keep the rest of the academics on their toes.
> Economic
> determinism is not the whole story, but it is a important part
> of the story and can not be left out. I mentioned Angela Davis in another
> post. She studied under Marcuse.
Maybe what we have here is a failure to acknowledge rather than to recognize.
Us lower class slobs would rather cling to the mythology of classlessness,
though
we know full well it is a lie. Of course, class is perfectly all right and even
beneficial
so long as it doesn't become ossified. As it is.
I see where this post has not been included in the "Attitudes towards America"
thread, but by itself as a new posting. That's fine by me. The old thread was
getting long and
unwieldy and the outline was completely off the page. Let's see if we can keep
this one growing.
Gaston
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
>
> Maybe what we have here is a failure to acknowledge rather than to recognize.
> Us lower class slobs would rather cling to the mythology of classlessness,
> though
> we know full well it is a lie. Of course, class is perfectly all right and even
> beneficial
> so long as it doesn't become ossified. As it is.
There is a good book by a woman from working class origins who
discusses many of the misunderstandings the "educated classes" have.
This is Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Fear of Falling" writen around 1990.
Another book I just finished and more recently deals with the
"forgotten working glass". The Democratic Party, whose elite
is largely from the educated class, has not been able to exploit
a group which has drifted from the Democratic fold. Ironically, the
working class group is now less racist that the upper classes, largely
because the works with blacks and hispanics. Yet the working class
gets labled with the "red neck" and "trailer trash" image.
Anyway, although the Demos gather in over 60% of the union vote
(about 22% of the total) they are scoring lower than 50% with
the working class in general, the white portion representing some
55% of the population. The Demos are taking over 90% of the Black
vote and a majority of the Hispanic but also comes out below 50%
among the 25% of the population having college degees.
> I see where this post has not been included in the "Attitudes towards America"
> thread, but by itself as a new posting. That's fine by me. The old thread was
> getting long and
> unwieldy and the outline was completely off the page. Let's see if we can keep
> this one growing.
This is due to an error in my outlook, it automatically prepares the
message as "Re: and not the original, I forget to remove the Re and
it sets up a new string. Write now my wife is writing a book and on
the comuputer so I am writing from a google account from our local
France Telecom internet site in Paris. I write this under the name
of Gaston, since that is my dachshunds name, but as always I use
my real name
Earl
JIGSAW1695
From: dev...@noos.fr (Gaston)
Date: 12/7/01 4:45 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <87cf7cf7.01120...@posting.google.com>
===============================
Earl, stop trying to turn this NG into your own socialist agenda. The issue is
the death penalty, not the struggle between the classes.
We all know that poverty has a direct bearing on the crime rate (or does it?)
and I see no problem in discussing it here, but every time we get onto the
subject, you want to turn in the direction of your own political agenda.
Jigsaw
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <20011207070034...@mb-mp.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
> Earl, stop trying to turn this NG into your own socialist agenda. The issue is
> the death penalty, not the struggle between the classes.
This particular subject string "Attitudes towards America" opened the door
to discussing "n'importe quoi". And that is exactly what has happened.
Now you are trying to censor a particular line of discussion when the
string is completely undisciplined and far from
"alt.activism.death-penalty".
Today`s news had a Ashcroft quote about giving verbal aid and comfort
to terrorists by talking about anything he disapproved of. Perhaps you
too can supply a series of subjects that you arrove of?
> We all know that poverty has a direct bearing on the crime rate (or does it?)
> and I see no problem in discussing it here, but every time we get onto the
> subject, you want to turn in the direction of your own political agenda.
I don`t hold a monopoly on political agenda pushing.
and---
Poverty and crime must have some relationship based on who is in prison!
Earl
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011207070034...@mb-mp.aol.com...
Jiggy - you are the last person to lecture anyone else about
off topic posts. You know it. We know it. So shut up!
JIGSAW1695
Date: 12/7/01 9:39 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <qI4Q7.9598$ez6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
===============================
Eat worms and die, you swine.
JIGSAW1695
From: "Earl Evleth" dev...@noos.fr
Date: 12/7/01 9:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <9uqgp4$158$1...@neon.noos.net>
--
"alt.activism.death-penalty".
and---
Earl
===============================
Yes indeed.... those below the poverty line are in jail more often then those
who have a bit of money.
If you have money in your pocket you dont need to steal. Of course there are
always the greedy ones we shouldnt forget.
ken...@shangrila.net
Gaston wrote:
> There is a good book by a woman from working class origins who
> discusses many of the misunderstandings the "educated classes" have.
>
> This is Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Fear of Falling" writen around 1990.
Yes, I've seen her stuff in Harpers and elsewhere. She does role playing.
She's been a waitress and a commercial house cleaner. Her latest is as a
cancer patient, but that's for real. She doesn't preach, merely telling it like
it is. The result is a searing indictment of the system.
> Another book I just finished and more recently deals with the
> "forgotten working glass". The Democratic Party, whose elite
> is largely from the educated class, has not been able to exploit
> a group which has drifted from the Democratic fold. Ironically, the
> working class group is now less racist that the upper classes, largely
> because the works with blacks and hispanics. Yet the working class
> gets labled with the "red neck" and "trailer trash" image.
The group that has drifted from the Democratic fold is its leadership.
Or maybe I just don't know what the party is supposed to be about.
I'm afraid that I can no longer speak with a personal knowledge of
the mindset of the working man. My first real job was as an apprentice
machinist helping to build 5-inch gun mounts at the Washington Navy
Yard. There were interruptions for World War II and college after,
but I stayed with that and eventually became a journeyman machinist and
worked at it for a few years. A medieval career path, you might say.
It could not be said that my fellow workers were either red necks or trailer
trash, though there might have been some of that. They were skilled workers,
in a way themselves an elite, and secure, albeit mistakenly, in that.
Neither am I expert on bigotry amongst the pampered, but it's there. I was a
member of one of the second tier (ranking uncertain) country clubs in the area
with a membership of corporate management types and a few strays like me.
It was a good place to eat and it had a great golf course, but I didn't socialize
much. I heard quite a few surprisingly venomous diatribes about "niggers" in the
locker room and offered my own disapproving silence in return. Eventually, I
lost interest in golf and moved on.
> Anyway, although the Demos gather in over 60% of the union vote
> (about 22% of the total) they are scoring lower than 50% with
> the working class in general, the white portion representing some
> 55% of the population. The Demos are taking over 90% of the Black
> vote and a majority of the Hispanic but also comes out below 50%
> among the 25% of the population having college degees.
Yet somehow the Democrats have not fought for unions at all. I have
just watched a Democratic president preside over eight years of "bipartisonship"
indistinguishable from Republicanism.
John Rennie
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
news:3C10F241...@bellatlantic.net...
I sometimes wish I had been able to manage a 'disapproving silence' but
lack of self control always let me down.
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <1z6Q7.10155$ez6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>
> <ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
> news:3C10F241...@bellatlantic.net...
>>
>>
>> Gaston wrote:
>>
>> > There is a good book by a woman from working class origins who
>> > discusses many of the misunderstandings the "educated classes" have.
>> >
>> > This is Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Fear of Falling" writen around 1990.
>>
>> Yes, I've seen her stuff in Harpers and elsewhere. She does role playing.
>> She's been a waitress and a commercial house cleaner. Her latest is as a
>> cancer patient, but that's for real. She doesn't preach, merely telling
> it like
>> it is. The result is a searing indictment of the system.
That is her recent book "Nickel and Dimed", which is lightweight in
some respects but does give on the feeling that one could not make
it in the low income region (minimum wage up to about $7/hour).
The main problem is housing. Kathern Newman goes into the housing
problem a bit on "No Shame is My Game", which is about the working
poor in New York City. Roughly speaking, earning a $1000 a month
does not work when housing is a $600/month, alone. So the poor have to
pal up in some way.
I had not heard she has cancer, by the way.
>> The group that has drifted from the Democratic fold is its leadership.
>> Or maybe I just don't know what the party is supposed to be about.
Historically, the political destiny of either party was clear because there
was none. The Democrats were a mixed group, the Southerner were
conservative and racist, the northerners had a mixed mission, some of
which cas just to otbtain power. I think the "mission" of the democratic
party in the New Deal period was accidental resulting from the political
vacuum of the Republicans's loss of power. Roosevelt was a partician,
and eventually a traitor to his social class. But I think after all he
was doing what was necessary to the country to survive.
>> I'm afraid that I can no longer speak with a personal knowledge of
>> the mindset of the working man. My first real job was as an apprentice
>> machinist helping to build 5-inch gun mounts at the Washington Navy
>> Yard. There were interruptions for World War II and college after,
>> but I stayed with that and eventually became a journeyman machinist and
>> worked at it for a few years. A medieval career path, you might say.
>> It could not be said that my fellow workers were either red necks or
>> trailer trash, though there might have been some of that. They were skilled
>> workers, in a way themselves an elite, and secure, albeit mistakenly, in
>> that.
The book I mentioned is worth reading: ³America¹s Forgotten Majority, why
the White Working Class still matters² R. Teixerira and J. Rogers, Basic
Books, 2000.
One of the factors in the book I remember is that the "working class" is
extremely broad, the exclusuary fact os the college diploma. Working class
people will often have some education byond high school. I think these
authors present some evidence the the famous racism of the white working
class is actually less now than the educated classes. So the red neck
trailer trash image is not generally valid, it is merely a put down
expression by those higher up the ladder.
The working class is worried about a number of things, top on the list
are their retirements and health care. At the same time a "new insecurity"
has arrived. Incomes have not been rising over the years and job security
is falling. Confidence in big Government has dropped progressively from
the 1950s when it was high (like 80%) into the 20-30% region now. So
most of the people have no confidence that the Government can provide social
safety. The same disatisfaction with big Government does not occur in
Europe to the same extend.
Earl
Duncan Idaho
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:9urc9i$42j$1...@neon.noos.net...
> That is her recent book "Nickel and Dimed", which is lightweight in
> some respects but does give on the feeling that one could not make
> it in the low income region (minimum wage up to about $7/hour).
> The main problem is housing. Kathern Newman goes into the housing
> problem a bit on "No Shame is My Game", which is about the working
> poor in New York City. Roughly speaking, earning a $1000 a month
> does not work when housing is a $600/month, alone. So the poor have to
> pal up in some way.
>
The above represents the kind of screwed-up arithmetic and indifference to
facts or logic that so often characterizes Leftists. Let us do some basic
arithmetic, shall we? Here in Orange County you can get housing, clean
housing, for between $600-900/month. (I know, I own some apartment
buildings.) Anyone who can read, write, and look presentable can get a job
paying between $10-12 / hr. (I know, I employ two more or less entry level
people). Now, think about it. $10/hr equates to $400/week. At this income
level there is very little income taxes, so most of it gets taken home, less
payroll taxes. $400/week is over $1600/month, not $1000/month. Someone
making $1,000/month is making about $6.25/hr. This is close to the minimum
wage, and is less than burger flippers make in California, where housing
costs about what Earl cites or a little less.
Now, think about it. A job for $6.25/hr. in Southern California is
absolutely unskilled, entry level labor. Is anyone suprised that "you can't
support a family of four" on such a wage, as I heard one Leftist whine one
night on the Nightly News? Such jobs are not intended to be vocations--they
are temporary stepping stones; usually for youths who live with their
parents or whom, as Earl puts it, "pal up" with someone else. Any 30 year
old who does such work invariably will turn out to have made some very, very
bad life decisions (drugs, alcohol, etc.), or be mentally retarded. Like,
we should adjust the minimum wage so that it supports such people? Right.
I did a Lexis search earlier today on news stories dealing with "Negative
Income Tax proposals" Nothing at all came up. As usual, Earl is simply
spouting Greenhouse Gas.
--
Roger J. Buffington
______________________
-----
"What is called "capitalism" might more accurately be called
consumerism. It is the consumers who call the tune, and the
capitalists who want to remain capitalists have to learn to dance
to it."
----Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics
--------------
"All human beings are guilty of being imperfect. But those who are quick to
blame America or Western civilization are seldom willing to compare our
imperfections with those of others. Instead, they condemn America or the
West for failing to come up to their arbitrary standard, while showering
others who fall even further below those standards with "understanding" in
the psychobabble sense."
Prof. Thomas Sowell
A Plenary Verbositor
"Duncan Idaho" wrote:
<snip>
>
> Here in Orange County you can get housing, clean
> housing, for between $600-900/month.
You live in Orange County, California? It figures. Hasn't been the same
there since all them commies and wetbacks voted out "B-1 Bob," right? By
the way, how's that Red Chinese army hiding in Mexico doing? Surely a bit
long in the tooth by now...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A Planet Visitor
"Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:WKbQ7.1916$ga.9...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
Europe lives as well in housing as those in the U.S. if in the
same economic stratum, unless the person in the U.S.
WANTS to. Most Continental Europeans are quite happy
with a 100 sq meter apartment, consisting of 1 and a half
baths, and two bedrooms. The typical house that is
occupied with the same dollar amount in the U.S., averages
about 2000 sq ft, which is more than twice as large, and
usually has at LEAST 2 full baths, three bedrooms and
some land. The problem is that Earl is comparing apples
and oranges again. A 100 sq meter apartment in inner-city
Europe, is usually well-maintained, except in some smaller
blighted areas usually occupied by non-citizens. While
an inner city U.S.100 sq meter apartment usually exists
ONLY in the ghetto. As Jigsaw pointed out, with Earl
being a slumlord, Earl should have these figures right at
his fingertips. And if we are talking about equal
costs in dollar figures, it is certain that the U.S. has a
higher income per/capita. From the World Almanac 2001,
the average wage of ALL U.S. Production Workers in
1999 was $456.78 per/week, for a 34.5 hour work week,
and this includes ALL workers from the most menial tasks
on. And just as certainly the rate is higher in Southern
California then it is in rural Iowa. And the cost of
living is adjusted as well.
PV
Duncan Idaho
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:3c11...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
>
>
> "Duncan Idaho" wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Here in Orange County you can get housing, clean
> > housing, for between $600-900/month.
>
> You live in Orange County, California? It figures. Hasn't been the same
> there since all them commies and wetbacks voted out "B-1 Bob," right? By
> the way, how's that Red Chinese army hiding in Mexico doing? Surely a bit
> long in the tooth by now...
>
Black Helicopters with the UN troops aboard are coming. They are filled
with big smiling Swedes with blue UN helmets (and they are armedd to the
teeth) who will occupy us while we sleep, and deprive us of our guns and
Bibles.
--
Roger J. Buffington
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:sCcQ7.16210$oj3.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
This autumn (fall) there were over 3000 living on the
streets of San Francisco - one major city in America.
How many in the whole of the UK - 550.
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/homeless/homelessrpt1.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1688000/1688651.stm
No further comment needed really.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:tWdQ7.7664$GU1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
We are talking about 'housing costs,' not abject poverty,
which exists to a much larger extent in the U.S. than the
U.K., nor have I ever denied that.
Perhaps you neglected to read the entire article on
the U.K. homeless. At the bottom it is stated that
"Experts believe around 400,000 single people are
currently homeless in the UK, and the government's
own figures show the number of families in
bed-and-breakfast accommodation has never been
higher."
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:EgdQ7.1927$ga.1...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
>
> "A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:3c11...@post.usenet.com...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Duncan Idaho" wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Here in Orange County you can get housing, clean
> > > housing, for between $600-900/month.
> >
> > You live in Orange County, California? It figures. Hasn't been the same
> > there since all them commies and wetbacks voted out "B-1 Bob," right? By
> > the way, how's that Red Chinese army hiding in Mexico doing? Surely a bit
> > long in the tooth by now...
> >
> I guess you just keep swigging that wood alky, hey? Sorry, got to go. The
> Black Helicopters with the UN troops aboard are coming. They are filled
> with big smiling Swedes with blue UN helmets (and they are armedd to the
> teeth) who will occupy us while we sleep, and deprive us of our guns and
> Bibles.
> --
You will find that 'A Plenary Verbositor' has neither
intelligence nor respect here. In fact, he once claimed
'some' murderers are 'good.' Thus your arguments are
seen as simply another response to what the long-time
poster to the group already recognizes is a rather pathetic
persona to begin with. A poster who is usually ignored as
an impotent troll. I could tell you of others who you
should avoid at all costs here, but it's best you learn for
yourself. Not Earl, of course, because he is DANGEROUS
to the rational thought process, while Plenary Verbositor
is seen as rather pitiful. Good luck.
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>Just a little advice on how the 'game' is played here, Roger.
>You will find that 'A Plenary Verbositor' has neither
>intelligence nor respect here.
PV, I don't know about the latter allegation, my not really being up
to date on the current political situation in this pissy little corner
of the entity to emerge from the ashes of ARPA, but with regard to the
former, you are clearly straying into that 'Out to Pasture in Florida'
fantasy land again.
> In fact, he once claimed
>'some' murderers are 'good.' Thus your arguments are
>seen as simply another response to what the long-time
>poster to the group already recognizes is a rather pathetic
>persona to begin with. A poster who is usually ignored as
>an impotent troll. I could tell you of others who you
>should avoid at all costs here, but it's best you learn for
>yourself. Not Earl, of course, because he is DANGEROUS
>to the rational thought process, while Plenary Verbositor
>is seen as rather pitiful. Good luck.
>
Otherwise, a classic PV rant. 8/10.
>
>PV
>
>> Roger J. Buffington
Oh dear. This cunt's still about is he?
w00f
A Plenary Verbositor
"Duncan Idaho" wrote:
>
> "A Plenary Verbositor" wrote:
> >
> > "Duncan Idaho" wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Here in Orange County you can get housing, clean
> > > housing, for between $600-900/month.
> >
> > You live in Orange County, California? It figures. Hasn't been the
same
> > there since all them commies and wetbacks voted out "B-1 Bob," right?
By
> > the way, how's that Red Chinese army hiding in Mexico doing? Surely a
bit
> > long in the tooth by now...
> >
> I guess you just keep swigging that wood alky, hey? Sorry, got to go.
The
> Black Helicopters with the UN troops aboard are coming. They are filled
> with big smiling Swedes with blue UN helmets (and they are armedd to the
> teeth) who will occupy us while we sleep, and deprive us of our guns and
> Bibles.
> --
Touche!
I usually don't cross-post, preferring to tweak the trolls' tails in
alt.activism.death-penalty. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
But I do a serious post once in awhile, like now.
My reading of your posts left me undecided as to whether you were a nut,
as opposed to a rational adult who happens to have a more ideological than
pragmatic view of human affairs. Public usenet being what it is, only
"rough sorting" methods can be employed to clarify such ambiguities. One
way to "rough sort" is to see how a poster responds to ribbing. Generally,
nuts have at best a puerile sense of humor, and regard self-effacing humor
as an oxymoron. Another way of putting it is that as long as you can find
things about yourself to laugh at, you're probably sane. I reiterate that
this is just a "rule of thumb," as I do recall (for example) reading that
the LooneyTune signoff ("Th-th-th-that's all, folks!") was once plagerized
in a suicide note.
Since I'm now satisfied by your response that you're not a nut, you have
no tail to be tweaked. But at the same time, I find more basic similarities
than differences between how you and Earl approach issues. For example,
consider the "Ozone Hole." Science never accepts anything as absolute fact,
it only deals in theories which become more likely to the extent they
survive progressive testing. For example, no human has ever intuitively
understood the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The likely explanation is
that there has never been any evolutionary pressure on humans to grasp what
occurs on the subatomic level. It can only be understood in a *scientific*
way, i.e. that it has thus far defied every experiment designed to disprove
it, and has predicted the outcome of experiments premised on it.
The destruction of ozone by CFCs was validated by laboratory experiments
in which every effort was made to duplicate upper atmosphere conditions.
CFCs are extremely rare in nature, their presence in the atmosphere could
only be attributed to humans. That is known because we have samples of
earth's atmosphere going back thousands of years from air pockets in glacial
ice. Although CFCs are an extremely minor component of the atmosphere,
their persistence (estimated at several decades) more than compensates in
their destructive effect.
CFCs were being manufactured for refrigeration. There were alternatives
available, albeit somewhat more expensive. An earth "twin study" could not
be conducted. So with the weight of scientific investigation pointing to
CFCs as the Ozone Hole culprit, the possibility that they weren't was simply
not worth the gamble.
There are times when ideology must yield to common sense, and the treaty
banning CFCs serves as a prime example of that.
So no more ideological rants about the Ozone Hole, OK?
A Plenary Verbositor
"A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> Just a little advice on how the 'game' is played here, Roger.
> You will find that 'A Plenary Verbositor' has neither
> intelligence nor respect here. In fact, he once claimed
> 'some' murderers are 'good.'
Tell the truth just once and shame the devil, you incorrigible clownjob.
You pompously proclaimed there was no such thing as a "good murderer,"
forgetting your previous proclamations that no killing ever poses a moral
issue. Rather than skewer you with that, I asked you to explain why
Rasputin's murderers were "bad." You had no answer, thus proving once more
what was already painfully evident: You don't post, you bray.
Duncan Idaho
> in which every effort was made to duplicate upper atmosphere conditions.
> CFCs are extremely rare in nature, their presence in the atmosphere could
> only be attributed to humans.
Too bad that the supposed gobbling up of Ozone by CFCs, in Pac Man form, has
never been observed to occur in nature. There are hundreds of chemical
reactions that take place in the upper atmosphere. No one knows whether one
reaction that was produced, with great difficulty, in a laboratory, really
describes what has happened in nature.
> That is known because we have samples of
> earth's atmosphere going back thousands of years from air pockets in
glacial
> ice. Although CFCs are an extremely minor component of the atmosphere,
> their persistence (estimated at several decades) more than compensates in
> their destructive effect.
Too bad that no one has produced any scientific evidence that UV-B radiation
striking the Earth's surface has increased. In fact studies indicate that
there is no trend of increase. If there is no more UV-B striking the Earth,
how can there be harm from more UV-B? That is the supposed harm caused by
the Ozone Hole, you know.
>
> CFCs were being manufactured for refrigeration. There were alternatives
> available, albeit somewhat more expensive. An earth "twin study" could
not
> be conducted. So with the weight of scientific investigation pointing to
> CFCs as the Ozone Hole culprit, the possibility that they weren't was
simply
> not worth the gamble.
Yes, especially since the patents on CFCs expired in the 1990s. Some guys
would make a lot of dough if industry was required to switch to new
chemicals--chemicals that certain parties hold new patents to.
I've read up on this Ozone Hole stuff. I'm no one's scientist, and I never
claimed to be one. But I can read pretty good, and there are some pretty
good writings out there on the subject. I have cited some of them
repeatedly here on this forum. Rennie and Earl cite the EPA website and
Newsweek in rebuttal. OK, fine. Maybe there is a controversy. But Earl
stated categorically that there could be no controversy, that anyone who
disagreed with him is a yokel and a crank. That isn't so. There are lots
of scientists who think that the Ozone Hole theory is simply junk science.
After reading up on the subject, I agree with them.
Earl pushed a lot of scientific gobbledegood and gibberish supposedly
showing something or other. It was incomprehensible to the layman--usually
a sure sign that the originator (Earl) doesn't know what he is talking
about. In my profession, one thing I've learned firsthand is that experts
who know what they are talking about are generally capable of talking about
it in a manner that other educated people can comprehend. That isn't Earl.
--
John Rennie
>> >
snip
> >
> > This autumn (fall) there were over 3000 living on the
> > streets of San Francisco - one major city in America.
> > How many in the whole of the UK - 550.
> >
> > http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/homeless/homelessrpt1.htm
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1688000/1688651.stm
> >
> > No further comment needed really.
> >
>
> We are talking about 'housing costs,' not abject poverty,
> which exists to a much larger extent in the U.S. than the
> U.K., nor have I ever denied that.
>
> Perhaps you neglected to read the entire article on
> the U.K. homeless. At the bottom it is stated that
>
> "Experts believe around 400,000 single people are
> currently homeless in the UK, and the government's
> own figures show the number of families in
> bed-and-breakfast accommodation has never been
> higher."
>
> PV
No I didn't neglect it. The b and b accommodation
is the reason that we have such a low figure
regarding those living on the street. It appears
that America has no such safety net. It is
how countries deal with 'abject poverty' that
determines the standard of 'civilisation' of that
country NOT the average square metres of
the accommodation of those who have 'made it'.
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <3c11...@post.usenet.com>, "A Plenary Verbositor"
<abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>
> "Duncan Idaho" wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Here in Orange County you can get housing, clean
>> housing, for between $600-900/month.
>
> You live in Orange County, California? It figures. Hasn't been the same
> there since all them commies and wetbacks voted out "B-1 Bob," right? By
> the way, how's that Red Chinese army hiding in Mexico doing? Surely a bit
> long in the tooth by now...
>
We used to live there ourselves, in Fullerton, that is, where our daughter
was born, my sister in Garden Grove and my parents in Leisure World.
Orange County is a strange and small world, getting away from it was not
big a deal. But it does have a reputation for small mindedness and so
Dunkhead is at home.
Earl
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <tWdQ7.7664$GU1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "John
Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:sCcQ7.16210$oj3.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:WKbQ7.1916$ga.9...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
>> >
>> > "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
>> > news:9urc9i$42j$1...@neon.noos.net...
>> > > That is her recent book "Nickel and Dimed", which is lightweight in
>> > > some respects but does give on the feeling that one could not make
>> > > it in the low income region (minimum wage up to about $7/hour).
>> > > The main problem is housing. Kathern Newman goes into the housing
>> > > problem a bit on "No Shame is My Game", which is about the working
>> > > poor in New York City. Roughly speaking, earning a $1000 a month
>> > > does not work when housing is a $600/month, alone. So the poor have
>> > > to pal up in some way.
>>> Let us do some basic arithmetic, shall we? Here in Orange County
Orange county may be the center of the world to Dunkhead but not to the
rest of the country.
The urban poor live in urban areas, have low mobility and so don't even move
around much.
>>> you can get housing, clean
>> > housing, for between $600-900/month. (I know, I own some apartment
>> > buildings.) Anyone who can read, write, and look presentable can get a
> >>job paying between $10-12 / hr.
That is a fairly high wage compared to urban poor wages. Ehrenreich was
not able to get a job paying more than $7. She is a "well known writer
with a PH.D. but here self appointed assignment was to live like those
who are hunting jobs in this salary region. She pretended to be a recently
divorce woman (she is in her 40s) without work experience. She worked
in different parts of the country as a waitress, for a cleaning service and
at a Wall-Marts. All paid less that $7.
Another, more academic study, on the working poor was done by Katherine
Newman ," No Shame is My Game".
The usual argument of you conservative idiots is that nobody works at
minimum wages except high school kids part time at suburban fast foods.
This is not true since minimum wages control the floor wage levels in the
urban areas. Currently that wage is $5.15, but there are large number
of people working in the range just above mininum wages, up to $7-8.
So your figure of $10-12 is globally misleading.
Minium wages, in terms of CONSTANT 1996 dollars have been dropping, reaching
a hight of $7.21 in 1968 and dropping to $4.72 in 2000, with a low of $4.24
in 1989 at the end of the Reagan "greed is good period.
I will also mentioned Katherine Newman`s seminal work called łFalling from
Grace, Downward Mobility
in the Age of Affluence˛. In "No Shame is my Game" she gives the example
of
a 22 yr old black man, Jamal, who can only find a job flipping hamburgers.
He has worked at a variety of
jobs, even in a car factory but is locked into NY with a wife and a baby.
In a good month he earned (1997) $680, his rent is $300 for a single room in
Harlem and behind in his rent as is. Housing costs are the most
significant part of the poor`s expenses. Some rant on about the poor not
being poor because they possess TV sets, microwaves and a variety of low
cost consumer items but not about their housing costs. In Jamal`s case NY
authorities took their baby away from he and his wife for mistreatment but
will let the child back into their possession when they have proper living
facilities which would cost about $600/month (1997) for a one room
apartment at the cheapest in a crummy area. A $600 apartment on a $680
income!
Typically the poor in the NY area pay about 60% of the income out on rent.
And Jamal`s yearly income puts him in the poverty class.
Whether or not Jamal and his wife receive food stamps is not discussed, big
deal considering the depth of poverty they are already in. In a poorly
heated building with holes in the floors and visits from the local rats,
this looks like total poverty. But these authors want łreal poverty˛, not
this high living stuff. The problem in the US is that anybody working at
the minimum wage is earning about 40% of the medium income, and since the
poverty line is at 50% they are earning poverty wages, they are the working
poor. The minimum wage average in Europe has been set at around 60% in
order to give working person a living wage. łLiving wage˛, remember that
expression. Clearly Jamal could be earning 30%, perhaps 50% more and still
not be out of poverty. He can`t earn enough to pay $600 a month in rent and
get his kid back. His bootstraps aren`t there.
I may return to the working poor issue in a later posting after completing
Newman`s book. Now I will return to wage stagnation. She has updated some
of the statistics from her 1988 book.
The table I took from Newman`s book was one I reported on before but now
updates. This is łPerceived financial well-being˛, 1984-1994. Newman`s
early book covered the period from 1970 on, but this table is updated to
łnow˛, and also is web available (www.icpsr.edu/gss/trend/finalter.htm). I
have not yet checked this address since Newman has it in her books.
These statistics show that about 40% (36.6% in Ś96) think things are
łgetting better˛, the remaining 60% think things are łthe same or getting
worse˛. That proportion has remained the same not only in this time period
but since 1970. These latter sentiments go against the illusion of the
American dream.
The next set of numbers "I love" is the median income shifts in the USA from
1987-96.
For full time male workers, the number was $37,568 in 1987, by 1996 this
group drifted downwards to $34,463. HOWEVER, women did better, their 1987
medium incomes went from $24,362 to $24,803, and increase of a whole $441.
Big deal. One might think families, where multiple incomes are now a
necessity, things were better but for the same time period went from $42,775
in 1987 to $42,300 in 1996.
Another Table which gives a dynamic feeling of what happens to the
individual as one gets old is how earnings increased for men.
Year Age 30 Income at age 40 income at Age 50 income
1949 $16,683 $26,415 $34,323
1960 $23,896 $35,598 $38,079
1975 $30,813 $36,976 $36,637
1985 $27,713 $32,348
1995 $24,306
What one sees is that since 1975 the incomes received at 30 decreased from
$30,813 to $24,306. The 30 yr olds "entry" income has slipped by $6000
in the 75-95 period.
Part of this might be that enough men stayed in the educational
world to effect the numbers, we all know perpetual graduate students. Still
they did not make up for it by the age of 40 whose average incomes had
dropped from $36,976 in 1985 to $32,348. All this is not stagnation but
downward movement for near beginners. In 1995, stagnation had reached a
point where the 50 year old salary earner had a decrease from 1985 to 95,
$36,976 to $36,637. It is anybody`s guess what the future holds for the
average guy, CEOs and stock optioners excepted.
Finally PV mentioned one set of figures but nothing on overall changes
occurring.
If this argument goes I will publish more and more bad news for the American
cultural propagandists.
Earl
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <mCeQ7.16892$oj3.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
> "Experts believe around 400,000 single people are
> currently homeless in the UK, and the government's
> own figures show the number of families in
> bed-and-breakfast accommodation has never been
> higher."
The figures on the homeless are hard to quantify anywhere. One academic
study I read a few years ago dealt with the difficulty. Some national
social
services may just count their homeless better than others. In fact the
statistical "disappearence" of the homeless in American cities is a
dillusion.
They are more invisible than before, especially in a society that does
not want to deal with the problem.
The problem is the following. The "homeless" are those who are not at
home.
By that definition, some 20-30 million people in the US are homeless
since they are not living in their own places, but with other people. They
would prefer to be in their own places but can't for various reasons.
A couple of years ago, before Rudy, the then NY mayor wanted to do something
about the "homeless" and found when he opened up appartment units, tens of
thousands appeared, they were mostly coming of the wood work of those living
temporarily with friends, not housed in cardboard boxes in the park. Thus
there
is a supply of clients for housing but the they don`t meet the means test.
The number of "homeless" has "dropped" in American cities since the doing
away
with transient crib hotels, where for $5 a night one had a bed. The former
occupants of these places have gone elsewhere, nobody knows where.
The area is a statistical minefield. We may have several million in
France
living in questionable housing situations (no heating and hot water). How
many there are in the US is another guess.
The bottom end of the homeless group are those who do not have a fixed
domicile (the French term is SDF)
and are out looking for a place to stay tonight etc. The real "shelterless"
often find shelter for the night but
are back on the streets the next day. Some or a lot of these people are
working. There was a news
item a while back about working people taking the bus all night to have a
place to live, referred
to as "the working homeless". Paris maintains special foyers for the
homeless and one can move
in permanently (located in Nanterre, next to Paris), plus we have special
buses with social workers
which try and gather up these people and take them there on a cold night.
I have seen them at work
and on one occasion we called them to pick up a person who appeared in
distress on the streets.
One SDF is a feature of our neighborhood, whom I talk with now and then. He
is mentally ill but
not mean but just does not want to live in a foyer. But when the weather
goes below freezing he
has to hunker down in a foyer.
Those in temporary housing but lacking security of housing are in another
group of "homeless".
In Ehrenreich's book she describes the problem of getting appartment
housing if one does not
have a deposit. So even getting into a $600/month place requires twice this
sum, and many of the working poor don`t have it, so they are "homeless"
since they often bed down in the front room of a friends place, for a while.
These welcomes do not last long.
The "paling up" I refered to occurs in various ways. One friend, on
getting a divorce, rented a
room in the house of a woman, also divorced who had to rent out to make a go
of it.
Our friend did not feel "at home" but she had steady shelter and moved on a
little later.
Women are often left with the house on a divorce but don`t have the income
to support
further payments and taxes. The poor practice it with family, friends, or
unmarried companions.
The idea is that there have to be multiple salaries coming into the
"household" to make a go of it.
One of the well know features of the poor is that there real incomes are
higher than there declared ones, on the average. Holding more than one
job is also a way to pump up income, more common in the US than France.
One feature of American life, compared to Europe, is that the work week
has been increasing over the decades. This is dealt with in book form in
Juliet Shors' book "The Overworked American", published n 1992.
Here are some comments I wrote up a while back based on a IHT article
on the subject.
Earl
****
The Herald Tribune today had a New York Times Service article comparing the
American workyear with other nations. The article is written by Steven
Greenhouse.
From 1990 to 2000 the Americans are working longer, the number
of hours per year have gone from 1942 to 1979, or 49 and one half
work weeks per year, of 40 hours.
The Japanese now even work less, having gone fro 2031 to 1842.
The even lazier Germans have gone from 1573 to 1480.
As for productivity, amount accomplished when working the
French came out first with $33.71 followed by the Belges
($32.98) and then the Americans ($32.84).
Apparently the overworked American is causing some comment
by American historians, there is a book by the same title "The
Overworked American". According to the writer of the book
there is a definite practice in the US by the stock option collecting
upmanagement to minimize the number of workers and make those
one keep work longer. Even if the productivity is not so hot.
It should also be said that the lowest 60% of the working population
in the US has had stagnating incomes since the 1970s. Therefore,
people are effectively working more for the same income. Only
family incomes have risen slightly, since more and more partners
have had to go to work to make up for the stagnation.
At statement by a representative of the National Association of
Manufacturers was that Americans are actually earning more doing
this but the numbers I have seen indicate that this is a lie.
A self-serving lie, to be sure, I suspect that the representative believes
it.
Earl
--
The Herald Tribune today had a New York Times Service article comparing the
American workyear with other nations. The article is written by Steven
Greenhouse.
From 1990 to 2000 the Americans are working longer, the number
of hours per year have gone from 1942 to 1979, or 49 and one half
work weeks per year, of 40 hours.
The Japanese now even work less, having gone fro 2031 to 1842.
The even lazier Germans have gone from 1573 to 1480.
As for productivity, amount accomplished when working the
French came out first with $33.71 followed by the Belges
($32.98) and then the Americans ($32.84).
Apparently the overworked American is causing some comment
by American historians, there is a book by the same title "The
Overworked American". According to the writer of the book
there is a definite practice in the US by the stock option collecting
upmanagement to minimize the number of workers and make those
one keep work longer. Even if the productivity is not so hot.
It should also be said that the lowest 60% of the working population
in the US has had stagnating incomes since the 1970s. Therefore,
people are effectively working more for the same income. Only
family incomes have risen slightly, since more and more partners
have had to go to work to make up for the stagnation.
At statement by a representative of the National Association of
Manufacturers was that Americans are actually earning more doing
this but the numbers I have seen indicate that this is a lie.
A self-serving lie, to be sure, I suspect that the representative believes
it.
Earl
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <RojQ7.2978$ga.2...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>, "Duncan Idaho"
<Barri...@socal.rr.com> a écrit :
> Too bad that no one has produced any scientific evidence that UV-B radiation
> striking the Earth's surface has increased.
Wrong again, the science is there and Duncan is not "all there". He
dodged the following articles for days and then pooh-poohed it.
Anyway the info is getting to the general public in the news mags.
Look for "UV-B" on a google search, and also "ozone hole" for more
direct data. I found no site yet that takes idiot-boy's stance.
The original article has a nice map showing the extent of the hole
and its overlapping into South America
Earl
*****
Under the Hole in the Sky
A modest city copes with harmful ultraviolet rays
By Jimmy Langman
NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONALDec. 3 issue ‹ Maria Alvarado can tell whether itąs a
green-light day or an orange-light day or, as happens more frequently these
days in the Chilean town of Punta Arenas, the worldąs most southerly city, a
red-light day. Alvarado, 35, works 12-hour shifts in the streets of Punta
Arenas keeping track of parked cars. She knows what it means when the sky
turns eerily white and the sunąs reflection off the surface of cars, windows
and the sea becomes downright blinding. It means that the hole in the
Earthąs ozone layer is right smack overhead: itąs a red-light day.
TO THE REST of the world, the ominously expanding Antarctic ozone hole
was dispatched with the worldwide ban on the use of ozone-depleting
substances in 1987‹ one of the 20th centuryąs biggest environmental
victories. To the 120,000 residents of Punta Arenas, the ozone hole is a
local nightmare. Each spring it still swells to about the size of North
America, just nipping the southern coast of Chile. As variable as the
weather, the hole makes sudden visits to the city. For days at a time, the
sunąs harsh ultraviolet rays, with no ozone shield to stop them, beat
directly down on residents.
To the 120,000 residents of Punta Arenas, the ozone hole is a local
nightmare.
A few decades ago sunburns and skin cancer were virtually
nonexistent in this cloudy, windy region. The expanding ozone hole changed
all that. Since 1986 Punta Arenas has had more than 150 days in which 25
percent or more of the ozone layer was absent and a handful in which the
loss exceeded 50 percent. Scientists report an even higher intensity of
so-called UV-B rays, a particularly carcinogenic frequency of UV radiation.
Skin cancer has soared 66 percent in the past seven years. Since UV-related
disorders take decades to surface, the true impact may not be known for
years. łItąs like being placed on top of a high mountain without any time to
acclimatize,˛ says Jaime Abarca, the cityąs only dermatologist. łPeople
living here just donąt have time to adapt.˛
For years the city was reluctant to take action, in part from fear
of scaring away tourists headed to nearby penguin colonies and other
attractions. In 1998 health department officials devised the łsolar
stoplight˛ to give residents warning of intense periods of UV radiation.
From September through December (the spring months), they activate actual
stoplights in schools and businesses, and issue updates to local newspapers,
television stations and radio stations. The solar stoplight has four colors:
green (normal), yellow (wear a hat and sunglasses), orange (apply sunscreen)
and red (stay in the shade łas much as possible˛). But the vast majority of
residents ignore the color-coded warnings. Children play soccer underneath
el agujero (the hole). A recent survey revealed that more than 60 percent of
residents have never used sunscreen and only 42 percent even own sunglasses.
Theories abound as to why people are so stubborn: theyąre afraid to stand
out from the crowd, they canąt afford hats or sunscreen, they donąt believe
the problem is as bad as the government says.
To raise awareness, local authorities have organized workshops for
people who work outdoors. The health departmentąs ozone-education program
tells citizens that they should learn to live with the ozone hole as if łit
is our friend.˛ łThere is nothing else they can do,˛ says director Lidia
Amarales. More stoplights and education projects are planned, but resources
are limited.
Newsweek International December 10 Issue € ATLANTIC EDITION: News and
features from Europe, Africa and the Middle East
John Rennie
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <mCeQ7.16892$oj3.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > "Experts believe around 400,000 single people are
> > currently homeless in the UK, and the government's
> > own figures show the number of families in
> > bed-and-breakfast accommodation has never been
> > higher."
>
> The figures on the homeless are hard to quantify anywhere. One academic
> study I read a few years ago dealt with the difficulty. Some national
> social
> services may just count their homeless better than others.
Yessssss very, very interesting. Trouble is I fell asleep
half way through the second Herald Tribune article. Is
there any way you could possibly précis your comments
Earl? Both you and PV use far too many words but
his capitalisation does tend to keep me awake.
John Rennie
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <RojQ7.2978$ga.2...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>, "Duncan Idaho"
> <Barri...@socal.rr.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > Too bad that no one has produced any scientific evidence that UV-B
radiation
> > striking the Earth's surface has increased.
>
> Wrong again, the science is there and Duncan is not "all there". He
> dodged the following articles for days and then pooh-poohed it.
Not really much good repeating it again, Earl. Roger has already
dismissed it twice. Once as anecdotal evidence only which is
untrue and again as the ramblings of the left wing which is
hilarious. On this subject Roger is invincibly ignorant and
is not to be persuaded.
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <TImQ7.13977$ez6.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
> Yessssss very, very interesting. Trouble is I fell asleep
> half way through the second Herald Tribune article.
I misposted it twice and did not see that that occurred, sorrty.
> Is there any way you could possibly précis your comments
> Earl?
Shorter, yes, my other postings were than way.
Or are you asking for more information on American income figures???
I have a lot of statistical information, none of it good for the
conservative
ideologists. The reason by the American workweek has been going up
is tied up in the particular form of capitalism in America. It is merely
cheaper for the system to keep people working longer. It is not by
choice,
that was clearly established in Schor's book. Another zinger is that
Americans assume that American productivity figures are the highest
on the world, but this is not true either. One newly complicating factor
in the postindustrial age, is that service industries have a hard time
improving productivity, the manufacturering industry does it with
improved machinery and robotization. Patrick Moynihan pointed out
a few years back that a 4-String Quartet has a natural limit on its
productivity. It can`t improve it by playing the music faster!
The homeless figures are hopeless since there is a large number who fit
into the total spectrum from living temporarily with friends and those in
cardboard boxes. The authorities don`t have an accurate number. A number
are statistically invisible. And if one is not looking one does not see
them
in any case. This is the advantage of living in a gated community.
Earl
John Rennie
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:lOjQ7.8473$GU1.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
meeting your agenda, you accept on faith. Those
that would discount your agenda in the very same
article, you dismiss. The U.S. has a very large
safety net in the way of overnight accommodations
to those homeless, but willing to find a place to
crash. Frequently, they do not even WANT such
overnight accommodations.
PV
A Planet Visitor
PV
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:sfqQ7.19503$oj3.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>Ummmm.... That's CRAPOLA. ****!!!!
>
<snipped>
Tee hee.
I wondered what you were on about, but chose not to mention it for
fear that I might have missed something.
Nevertheless, mistyping 'CRAPOLA' as 'CARPOOL' is perhaps the worlds
biggest typo. What's that you used to say about spastic fingers?
w00f
PS- BTW, could you please cease the bad language. I find it fucking
offensive.
John Rennie
Well yes but even I did not think you would savage
your own post so viciously!
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9usjkt$i4f$1...@neon.noos.net...
> Dans l'article <tWdQ7.7664$GU1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "John
> Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > news:sCcQ7.16210$oj3.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>
> >> "Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:WKbQ7.1916$ga.9...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> >> > news:9urc9i$42j$1...@neon.noos.net...
I love this... Citing my comment, but clipping it ALTOGETHER.
I will now clip much of Earl's 'bullshit.'
> The table I took from Newman`s book was one I reported on before but now
> updates. This is łPerceived financial well-being˛, 1984-1994. Newman`s
> early book covered the period from 1970 on, but this table is updated to
> łnow˛, and also is web available (www.icpsr.edu/gss/trend/finalter.htm). I
> have not yet checked this address since Newman has it in her books.
How about that? Referencing a non-existent web page.
> Finally PV mentioned one set of figures but nothing on overall changes
> occurring.
The part of my post that Earl conveniently clipped
"From the World Almanac 2001, the average wage of
ALL U.S. Production Workers in 1999 was $456.78
per/week, for a 34.5 hour work week, and this includes
ALL workers from the most menial tasks on."
Here are the past figures, since Earl feels it has some
relevance, which eludes me.
Hours hourly earnings Weekly earnings
1969 37.7 3.04 114.61
1972 37.0 3.70 136.90
1975 36.1 4.53 163.53
1978 35.8 5.69 203.70
1981 35.2 7.25 255.20
1984 35.2 8.32 292.86
1987 34.8 8.98 312.50
1990 34.5 10.01 345.35
1993 34.5 10.83 373.64
1996 34.5 11.82 406.61
In addition here are the average hourly compensation
COSTS in respect to France and the U.S. in the
selected years in U.S. dollars-
1975 1985 1990 1998
France 4.52 7.52 15.49 18.28
U.S. 6.36 13.01 14.91 18.56
Make of them what you will. Unlike Earl, I ask the
'reader' to draw conclusions. I do not arrogantly TELL
them what conclusions should be drawn.
> If this argument goes I will publish more and more bad
> news for the American
> cultural propagandists.
>
'cultural propagandists' certainly sounds like an
expression you'd invent. Have you EVER read any
books except those with a Marxist flavor, or some
outdated scientific article? I will again summarize
how I perceive you, Earl.You must realize that you're
living in the PAST. Trying to bring back past
imagined glories, while at the same time recognizing that
you are largely being ignored, as no longer a significant
contributor to the scientific scene in your chosen
profession, if you ever were to begin with. It's almost
painful for me to see you undergo the transformation with
age, that I know you must be going through. With my
realizing that your knowledge is perhaps as deep as a well,
yet just as BROAD. It's all part of the pompous,
pretentious, patronizing, pathetic, ego-driven tenor of
the posts you provide here. And I can't help but believe
that your journey to Paris from American academia --
so many years ago -- had a rather underlying
escapist-driven motivation. I think you felt you could
no longer compete in the environment you found yourself
in, in the U.S. I believe, your associates found you to
be UNBEARABLE and (quite unlike Feynman), unaware
of ANYTHING outside of the training you had received --
yet trying desperately to be an 'intellectual.' Thus
your foray into Marxism, because it represented the
antithesis of U.S. Capitalism to you. A foray which turned
instead into a lifetime outlook rather than the quick
examination and repudiation which it actually deserves.
It never left you, yet it has been totally repudiated by every
thinking person. I believe you found in Paris, the path of
least resistance to your ego. A working environment
you could intimidate in your professional life, since the
scientific level was nowhere near as substantial as that
which you found in U.S. academia. And a gullible
'intellectual' audience, accustomed to the intellectual
naivety of Camus and Sartre, grouping for answers you
were only to happy to provide in your ego-driven pursuit
of 'elitism.' And you've FOREVER hated the fact that
you were professionally and intellectually driven from
U.S. academia. I think you've become obsessively envious
of associates you knew in the U.S., who achieved honors
far beyond any you will ever realize. A fact which you have
subconsciously extended into a hate for ALL things related
to the America you were professionally and intellectually
forced to flee. You found your neat little niche (which I have
to admit is a beautiful niche), and have been vegetating
ever since.
PV
> Earl
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <FqrQ7.19821$oj3.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
> Here are the past figures, since Earl feels it has some
> relevance, which eludes me.
>
> Hours hourly earnings Weekly earnings
> 1969 37.7 3.04 114.61
> 1972 37.0 3.70 136.90
> 1975 36.1 4.53 163.53
> 1978 35.8 5.69 203.70
> 1981 35.2 7.25 255.20
> 1984 35.2 8.32 292.86
> 1987 34.8 8.98 312.50
> 1990 34.5 10.01 345.35
> 1993 34.5 10.83 373.64
> 1996 34.5 11.82 406.61
These are NOT corrected for inflation.
For instance, if you take 1972 the inflation correction is 3.75 with respect
to 1996 dollars, so the inflation corrected 3.70 is actually $13.90. These
means that the hourly earnings in 1972, inflation corrected were higher
than n 1996 (11.82) 15%, or roughly speaking, the average hourly
wage earner has dropped about 15%.
Some catagories a little lower have dropped more, like Blacks with a high
school diploma, etc. I have those figures;
The median wages (in the Times 2001 Almanac) for all races was, in 1998,
$26,492 (1998 dollars) , in 1970 it was $26,325. By 1995 it had dropped
to $24,131. So here too one sees stagnation.
Simply, when you cite these kinds of figures they have to be corrected.
One issue has been whether the inflation correction is overly correcting,
this came up for debate a couple of years ago. The problem is the
composition of the "basket" in which one computes inflation.
Earl
Duncan Idaho
> No I didn't neglect it. The b and b accommodation
> is the reason that we have such a low figure
> regarding those living on the street. It appears
> that America has no such safety net. It is
> how countries deal with 'abject poverty' that
> determines the standard of 'civilisation' of that
> country NOT the average square metres of
> the accommodation of those who have 'made it'.
Unfortunately, your analysis is defective on both ends. First of all, as
the previous poster pointed out, the UK has hundreds of thousands of
homeless people, not a few hundred as you falsely stated. Hell, a pal of
mine just returned from the UK--if you folks have 400 homeless, he must have
seen all 1000 of them. Secondly, the US does indeed have a safety net. It
has been thoroughly documented that most of America's homeless are substance
abusers. Many charities cannot even get homeless people to spend the night
in their shelters, because the homeless will not take the requisite shower
before being assigned a bunk, because they are mentally deranged from
substance abuse. No safety net can help such people. In point of fact, for
the past ten years there has been a labor shortage, and anyone with the
ability to read and write can get a job. The homeless invariably turn out
to have special problems, usually substance abuse, that a "safety net"
usually cannot solve. The old canard that America's homeless is comprised
of out-of-work scientists, engineers, and college professors is utter
rubbish. I worked in downtown LA, in one of the highest concentrations of
the homeless in the entire country. I thus do not derive the foregoing only
from studies--I have seen it, lived with it, stepped over it, and been
panhandled by it first hand. If it makes you happy to believe such
nonsense, fine, but expect me to refute it when you post it.
--
Roger J. Buffington
Duncan Idaho
> We used to live there ourselves, in Fullerton, that is, where our daughter
> was born, my sister in Garden Grove and my parents in Leisure World.
>
> Orange County is a strange and small world, getting away from it was not
> big a deal. But it does have a reputation for small mindedness and so
> Dunkhead is at home.
>
> Earl
Notice that Earl has now degenerated from spewing incomprehensible BS to
simple personal attacks. This is indicative of the frontiers of his ability
to contribute to any discussion.
Duncan Idaho
> That is a fairly high wage compared to urban poor wages. Ehrenreich was
> not able to get a job paying more than $7. She is a "well known writer
> with a PH.D. but here self appointed assignment was to live like those
> who are hunting jobs in this salary region. She pretended to be a
recently
> divorce woman (she is in her 40s) without work experience. She worked
> in different parts of the country as a waitress, for a cleaning service
and
> at a Wall-Marts. All paid less that $7.
You just have to wonder what planet Earl lives on. You just do.
> The usual argument of you conservative idiots is that nobody works at
> minimum wages except high school kids part time at suburban fast foods.
> This is not true since minimum wages control the floor wage levels in the
> urban areas. Currently that wage is $5.15, but there are large number
> of people working in the range just above mininum wages, up to $7-8.
> So your figure of $10-12 is globally misleading.
No, it is utterly realistic. I have run companies in downtown LA, Orange
County, and northern LA county. Unlike you, I know what wages are. They
are $10-12 for anything more complex than bagging groceries. If Ehrenreich
couldn't get a better salary, it was because she wanted to be able to say
that in her book, not because she tried.
>
> Minium wages, in terms of CONSTANT 1996 dollars have been dropping,
reaching
> a hight of $7.21 in 1968 and dropping to $4.72 in 2000, with a low of
$4.24
> in 1989 at the end of the Reagan "greed is good period.
God what BS.
> He has worked at a variety of
> jobs, even in a car factory but is locked into NY with a wife and a baby.
Hmmm. There is not an auto worker in America who makes less than around
$20/hr.
Like I said, Europe gives America thousands of talented people every year.
In exchange, we gave them Earl. We Americans aren't so stupid.
Duncan Idaho
Speaking of and to Earl:
> And you've FOREVER hated the fact that
> you were professionally and intellectually driven from
> U.S. academia. I think you've become obsessively envious
> of associates you knew in the U.S., who achieved honors
> far beyond any you will ever realize. A fact which you have
> subconsciously extended into a hate for ALL things related
> to the America you were professionally and intellectually
> forced to flee. You found your neat little niche (which I have
> to admit is a beautiful niche), and have been vegetating
> ever since.
>
> PV
Earl would have us believe that the standard of living in France is higher
than that of America. He also deludes himself that the French median income
is better.
In reality, France is considered by that one international rating group to
be "partly free" not completely free. At least America makes the top ten of
"completely free" and manages to do so with a high standard of living.
In France, by contrast, people's economic freedom is vastly constrained.
You see a lot of side effects of this too, like chronic strikes and labor
unrest. Paris is constantly overrun by labor troubles.
dirtdog
<Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>Unfortunately, your analysis is defective on both ends.
As is your mother - smelly breath/rotten teeth at one end, piles at
the other.
> First of all, as
>the previous poster pointed out, the UK has hundreds of thousands of
>homeless people, not a few hundred as you falsely stated.
Hundreds of thousands, eh? I'd be interested to see which defective
end of your mother you pulled that figure out of.
> Hell, a pal of
>mine just returned from the UK--if you folks have 400 homeless, he must have
>seen all 1000 of them.
Oooooo. anecdotal evidence - very scientific.
Could his unusual exposure to the homeless be explained, perchance, by
the fact that a homeless person in the UK is not arrested for vagrancy
in the UK if they stray outside their designated ghetto?
> Secondly, the US does indeed have a safety net.
Bugger me. The sheer passion with which you back up that statement
just caused me to faint
> It
>has been thoroughly documented that most of America's homeless are substance
>abusers.
Wanker. Thoroughly documented by whom? What is a 'substance abuser'?
Do all 'substances' fall into this category? Is a person a substance
abuser because they chew plastic? What about if they drink too much
coffee?
Anyway, that is besides the point. Are you therefore saying it's their
own fault?
> Many charities cannot even get homeless people to spend the night
>in their shelters,
On what do you base your assertion here?
>because the homeless will not take the requisite shower
>before being assigned a bunk, because they are mentally deranged from
>substance abuse.
I'm bored of your
unsubstantiated-opinion-dressed-as-fact-perhaps-loosely-based-on-some
-newspaper-article-you-read-one-day now, so I shall stop here.
You, my son, are all wind and piss.
<rest snipped>
w00f
Duncan Idaho
> The problem is the following. The "homeless" are those who are not at
> home.
> By that definition, some 20-30 million people in the US are homeless
> since they are not living in their own places, but with other people.
They
> would prefer to be in their own places but can't for various reasons.
By this asinine standard, my son and daughter are homeless. God, you know I
think you could give Earl a laxative and then fit him in a matchbox.
> One of the well know features of the poor is that there real incomes are
> higher than there declared ones, on the average. Holding more than one
> job is also a way to pump up income, more common in the US than France.
Yes, in France people are lucky to have even one job.
>
> One feature of American life, compared to Europe, is that the work week
> has been increasing over the decades. This is dealt with in book form in
> Juliet Shors' book "The Overworked American", published n 1992.
> Here are some comments I wrote up a while back based on a IHT article
> on the subject.
In America people work a fair number of hours because that is the way to get
ahead--hard work. Yes, we Americans work hard, because by doing so we have
a reasonable expectation of bettering ourselves, and advancing our careers.
In France, by contrast, most of the people are government employees or
employees of big, bureaucratic (and old) companies--companies that can
neither advance them much, or ever lay them off. Eurosclerosis, in other
words. OF COURSE people trapped in such situations will take a lot of time
off. Who wouldn't?
Duncan Idaho
> The reason by the American workweek has been going up
> is tied up in the particular form of capitalism in America. It is merely
> cheaper for the system to keep people working longer. It is not by
> choice,
> that was clearly established in Schor's book.
I'll bet it was. God what crap.
Another zinger is that
> Americans assume that American productivity figures are the highest
> on the world, but this is not true either. One newly complicating factor
> in the postindustrial age, is that service industries have a hard time
> improving productivity, the manufacturering industry does it with
> improved machinery and robotization. Patrick Moynihan pointed out
> a few years back that a 4-String Quartet has a natural limit on its
> productivity. It can`t improve it by playing the music faster!
Note that there is not a shred of logic to support anything Earl is
contending. You can smell the manure emanating from the above paragraph.
> The homeless figures are hopeless since there is a large number who fit
> into the total spectrum from living temporarily with friends and those in
> cardboard boxes. The authorities don`t have an accurate number. A
number
> are statistically invisible. And if one is not looking one does not see
> them
> in any case. This is the advantage of living in a gated community.
>
> Earl
Another paragraph that means absolutely nothing. We have established that
France and Britain have lots of homeless. What does the above have to do
with anything?
Duncan Idaho
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <RojQ7.2978$ga.2...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>, "Duncan Idaho"
> <Barri...@socal.rr.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > Too bad that no one has produced any scientific evidence that UV-B
radiation
> > striking the Earth's surface has increased.
>
> Wrong again, the science is there and Duncan is not "all there". He
> dodged the following articles for days and then pooh-poohed it.
>
> Anyway the info is getting to the general public in the news mags.
> Look for "UV-B" on a google search, and also "ozone hole" for more
> direct data. I found no site yet that takes idiot-boy's stance.
> The original article has a nice map showing the extent of the hole
> and its overlapping into South America
Too bad that you have ignored the scientific evidence that I have repeatedly
posted showing that UV-B is not increasing. Here goes: A. Robinson "Access
to Energy" 1994 (showing that EPA studies seeking to correllate Ozone Hole
with UV-B levels failed to do so); Maduro & Shaurhammer "The Holes in the
Ozone Scare" 21st Century Science Assts.; S. Fred Singer "Shaky Science is
Scarier than Ozone Scare" Insight March 28, 1994; Steven Penkett "UV Levels
Down Not Up" Nature Vol 341 Sep.1989.
But you go on citing Newsweek. Just don't expect me to be impressed. By
the way the first cite directly took on the EPA study and showed that it was
statistical nonsense.
John Rennie
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:mqm41ug83brgtl3tq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:02:16 GMT, "Duncan Idaho"
> <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
> >Unfortunately, your analysis is defective on both ends.
>
> As is your mother - smelly breath/rotten teeth at one end, piles at
> the other.
ROTFLMAO (back to your best form doggie)
ken...@shangrila.net
Earl Evleth wrote:
November Harpers, "Welcome to Cancerland: A Mammogram Leads to a Cult of Pink Kitsch" Personal experience as sociology.That is her recent book "Nickel and Dimed", which is lightweight in some respects but does give on the feeling that one could not make it in the low income region (minimum wage up to about $7/hour). The main problem is housing. Kathern Newman goes into the housing problem a bit on "No Shame is My Game", which is about the working poor in New York City. Roughly speaking, earning a $1000 a month does not work when housing is a $600/month, alone. So the poor have to pal up in some way. I had not heard she has cancer, by the way.
I think there's been a good deal of what you might call geological drift in politicalHistorically, the political destiny of either party was clear because there was none. The Democrats were a mixed group, the Southerner were conservative and racist, the northerners had a mixed mission, some of which cas just to otbtain power. I think the "mission" of the democratic party in the New Deal period was accidental resulting from the political vacuum of the Republicans's loss of power. Roosevelt was a partician, and eventually a traitor to his social class. But I think after all he was doing what was necessary to the country to survive.
philosophy over the years. During the Civil War period I would have been probably
a Radical Republican. The southern Democrats have drifted off to become the mainstay of the GOP. Today, I don't have a home, though "FDR Democrat" would
come close to describing my philosophy. I believe in the kind of balance of forces
that has been steadily eroded this last century, especially over the last couple of decades, to the point where corporations and the very rich wield almost all the power. No doubt I will enlarge upon the point.
As one who has experienced first hand the worthlessness of 3-1/2 years of college, I can wholeheartedly agree with the value of the diploma. With it one is a "professional"; without it, a loser.The book I mentioned is worth reading: ³America¹s Forgotten Majority, why the White Working Class still matters² R. Teixerira and J. Rogers, Basic Books, 2000. One of the factors in the book I remember is that the "working class" is extremely broad, the exclusuary fact os the college diploma. Working class people will often have some education byond high school. I think these authors present some evidence the the famous racism of the white working class is actually less now than the educated classes. So the red neck trailer trash image is not generally valid, it is merely a put down expression by those higher up the ladder.
There has been a deliberate propaganda campaign against "big gummint" for many years. It has been a dedicated effort similar to the smears against Clinton, but longer lasting. That big gummint has not exactly been infallible or benevolent in many cases has not helped its case. So it isn't surprising that lots of people have lost confidence.The working class is worried about a number of things, top on the list are their retirements and health care. At the same time a "new insecurity" has arrived. Incomes have not been rising over the years and job security is falling. Confidence in big Government has dropped progressively from the 1950s when it was high (like 80%) into the 20-30% region now. So most of the people have no confidence that the Government can provide social safety. The same disatisfaction with big Government does not occur in Europe to the same extend.
A Planet Visitor
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3c11...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
>
> > Just a little advice on how the 'game' is played here, Roger.
> > You will find that 'A Plenary Verbositor' has neither
> > intelligence nor respect here. In fact, he once claimed
> > 'some' murderers are 'good.'
>
> Tell the truth just once and shame the devil, you incorrigible clownjob.
> You pompously proclaimed there was no such thing as a "good murderer,"
> forgetting your previous proclamations that no killing ever poses a moral
> issue.
Need I say - CRAPOLA... EVERY killing (including lawful
executions and self-defense killings) poses a moral issue.
I've never said otherwise. In fact in that SAME thread,
I posted ---- "suppose you are a law enforcement member,
and you are confronted with a terrorist with an automatic
weapon who is spraying a crowd of people with that weapon.
Should you take the 'wrong' action of killing that terrorist?
Of course, I recognize and accept subjectively that 'killing
is wrong,' in the selective individual sense. The execution
of a murderer is 'wrong' in a subjective moral sense to me.
NO KILLING OF A HUMAN IS 'RIGHT' in a moral sense to
me."
> Rather than skewer you with that, I asked you to explain why
> Rasputin's murderers were "bad." You had no answer, thus
> proving once more what was already painfully evident: You
> don't post, you bray.
>
This was the EXACT dialog --
PV wrote --
"I've never heard of a 'good' murderer. Perhaps you can enlighten
us as to that 'good' guy who murders. And then we can have a
REALLY lively discussion." to another poster.
You burst in with an insult to both me and the moral
concept we ordinarily hold toward murder with ---
"You are indeed a galaxy-class turkey. Try Rasputin's
murderers for starters. ROTFL!"
Now if YOU believe Rasputin's murderers were 'good'
murderers, then perhaps you believe Lincoln's (If you
were a Southern slaver), McKinley's (If you were an
anarchist), Gandhi's (If you were a Hindu extremist),
Martin Luther King's (If you were a bigot), Montbatten's
(If you were a IRA idiot), Sadat's (If you were an
Islamic extremist), and the WTC suicide murderers (If
you are a terrorist), were 'good' as well. And the list goes
on. Once you insert YOUR moral philosophy into
believing MURDERERS are GOOD, you've obviously lost
your own moral compass in respect to the law. I will not
get into a moral argument with you, because the concept
you present is so frightening to me, that I worry for your
mental well-being. In addition, as I've pointed out, I find
you not even worthy of any sensible dialog.
MURDER IS NOT GOOD. MURDERERS ARE NOT GOOD.
Believing that to not be true, is to renounce civilization.
PV
ken...@shangrila.net
Duncan Idaho wrote:
> "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> news:9urc9i$42j$1...@neon.noos.net...
> > That is her recent book "Nickel and Dimed", which is lightweight in
> > some respects but does give on the feeling that one could not make
> > it in the low income region (minimum wage up to about $7/hour).
> > The main problem is housing. Kathern Newman goes into the housing
> > problem a bit on "No Shame is My Game", which is about the working
> > poor in New York City. Roughly speaking, earning a $1000 a month
> > does not work when housing is a $600/month, alone. So the poor have to
> > pal up in some way.
> >
>
> The above represents the kind of screwed-up arithmetic and indifference to
> facts or logic that so often characterizes Leftists. Let us do some basic
> arithmetic, shall we? Here in Orange County you can get housing, clean
> housing, for between $600-900/month. (I know, I own some apartment
> buildings.) Anyone who can read, write, and look presentable can get a job
> paying between $10-12 / hr. (I know, I employ two more or less entry level
> people). Now, think about it. $10/hr equates to $400/week. At this income
> level there is very little income taxes, so most of it gets taken home, less
> payroll taxes. $400/week is over $1600/month, not $1000/month. Someone
> making $1,000/month is making about $6.25/hr. This is close to the minimum
> wage, and is less than burger flippers make in California, where housing
> costs about what Earl cites or a little less.
Of course Orange County is one of the more expensive places to live in the
country.
I have a friend whose wife is an executive with Fox, who recently moved to
Manhattan Beach from Wichita. In Wichita he owned a beautiful large house in a
walled in community near the northeast corner of the city. It would have been a
gated community except that no one wanted to bother with a gate. In Manhattan
Beach he has a much smaller house. In fact, he doesn't even have a spare
bedroom for his daughter. He is not poor or close to poor. I have seen
comparisons with my own area and MB is about four times more expensive. Right
now a 1br, 66 sq m apartment in a fairly crummy Washington D. C. neighborhood is
advertised for $850/month. I'm wondering what kind of broom closet with pisspot
can be had for that in Orange County.
> Now, think about it. A job for $6.25/hr. in Southern California is
> absolutely unskilled, entry level labor. Is anyone suprised that "you can't
> support a family of four" on such a wage, as I heard one Leftist whine one
> night on the Nightly News? Such jobs are not intended to be vocations--they
> are temporary stepping stones; usually for youths who live with their
> parents or whom, as Earl puts it, "pal up" with someone else. Any 30 year
> old who does such work invariably will turn out to have made some very, very
> bad life decisions (drugs, alcohol, etc.), or be mentally retarded. Like,
> we should adjust the minimum wage so that it supports such people? Right.
>
> I did a Lexis search earlier today on news stories dealing with "Negative
> Income Tax proposals" Nothing at all came up. As usual, Earl is simply
> spouting Greenhouse Gas.
> --
> Roger J. Buffington
> ______________________
> -----
> "What is called "capitalism" might more accurately be called
> consumerism. It is the consumers who call the tune, and the
> capitalists who want to remain capitalists have to learn to dance
> to it."
> ----Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics
Which is why, "for my convenience" airline seats are too narrow and close
together.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message news:mqm41ug83brgtl3tq...@4ax.com...
> <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> <rest snipped>
> You, my son, are all wind and piss.
>
ROTFLMAO... pot...kettle...black. Although I
well know you are trolling, it will take a few posts
perhaps for Roger to recognize that as well.
PV
>
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9utk7k$r54$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <FqrQ7.19821$oj3.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > Here are the past figures, since Earl feels it has some
> > relevance, which eludes me.
> >
> > Hours hourly earnings Weekly earnings
> > 1969 37.7 3.04 114.61
> > 1972 37.0 3.70 136.90
> > 1975 36.1 4.53 163.53
> > 1978 35.8 5.69 203.70
> > 1981 35.2 7.25 255.20
> > 1984 35.2 8.32 292.86
> > 1987 34.8 8.98 312.50
> > 1990 34.5 10.01 345.35
> > 1993 34.5 10.83 373.64
> > 1996 34.5 11.82 406.61
>
> These are NOT corrected for inflation.
>
> For instance, if you take 1972 the inflation correction is 3.75 with respect
> to 1996 dollars, so the inflation corrected 3.70 is actually $13.90. These
> means that the hourly earnings in 1972, inflation corrected were higher
> than n 1996 (11.82) 15%, or roughly speaking, the average hourly
> wage earner has dropped about 15%.
>
> Some catagories a little lower have dropped more, like Blacks with a high
> school diploma, etc. I have those figures;
>
>
> The median wages (in the Times 2001 Almanac) for all races was, in 1998,
> $26,492 (1998 dollars) , in 1970 it was $26,325. By 1995 it had dropped
> to $24,131. So here too one sees stagnation.
>
> Simply, when you cite these kinds of figures they have to be corrected.
> One issue has been whether the inflation correction is overly correcting,
> this came up for debate a couple of years ago. The problem is the
> composition of the "basket" in which one computes inflation.
>
See what I mean, Earl??? You will arrogantly assume
YOU may translate the meaning of these figures for all
those unable to make such a translation for themselves.
And you wonder why most here see you as pompous.
PV
> Earl
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9ut7d6$70$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <TImQ7.13977$ez6.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > Yessssss very, very interesting. Trouble is I fell asleep
> > half way through the second Herald Tribune article.
>
> I misposted it twice and did not see that that occurred, sorrty.
>
>
> > Is there any way you could possibly précis your comments
> > Earl?
>
> Shorter, yes, my other postings were than way.
>
> Or are you asking for more information on American income figures???
> I have a lot of statistical information, none of it good for the
> conservative
> ideologists.
None of it believable as well.
> The reason by the American workweek has been going up
> is tied up in the particular form of capitalism in America. It is merely
> cheaper for the system to keep people working longer. It is not by
> choice,
> that was clearly established in Schor's book. Another zinger is that
> Americans assume that American productivity figures are the highest
> on the world, but this is not true either.
Ummm... OECD figures, Earl. French GDP per/capita =
$23,200 USD. U.S. GDP per/capita = $36,000 USD. And
in fact, ONLY tiny Lxembourg has a higher GDP per/capita,
of all countries tracked by the OECD. Bow down before
your graven image, Earl. Funny how you find so much
evidence there when it SUITS your agenda, but ignore
it when it does not.
> One newly complicating factor
> in the postindustrial age, is that service industries have a hard time
> improving productivity, the manufacturering industry does it with
> improved machinery and robotization. Patrick Moynihan pointed out
> a few years back that a 4-String Quartet has a natural limit on its
> productivity. It can`t improve it by playing the music faster!
>
Argggg!!!! What does that MEAN in respect to the
argument?
>
> The homeless figures are hopeless since there is a large number who fit
> into the total spectrum from living temporarily with friends and those in
> cardboard boxes. The authorities don`t have an accurate number.
> A number
> are statistically invisible. And if one is not looking one does not see
> them
> in any case. This is the advantage of living in a gated community.
>
If they are 'hopeless' then DO NOT use them to prove
some obscure point. BTW -- How does your daughter
enjoy living in one?
PV
> Earl
Duncan Idaho
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:ZdxQ7.22173$oj3.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Ummm... OECD figures, Earl. French GDP per/capita =
> $23,200 USD. U.S. GDP per/capita = $36,000 USD. And
> in fact, ONLY tiny Lxembourg has a higher GDP per/capita,
> of all countries tracked by the OECD. Bow down before
> your graven image, Earl. Funny how you find so much
> evidence there when it SUITS your agenda, but ignore
> it when it does not.
So the USA has half again the personal per/capita income that France does.
Guess I am having a hard time being impressed with France. Particularly
since the USA has consistently ranked "freer" than France in various other
evaluations.
Essentially, Earl is dishonest. Once you understand that THAT is the
central driving force in his thinkings and postings, it is possible to make
sense of these.
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9usmgp$nmi$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <mCeQ7.16892$oj3.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > "Experts believe around 400,000 single people are
> > currently homeless in the UK, and the government's
> > own figures show the number of families in
> > bed-and-breakfast accommodation has never been
> > higher."
>
Then why try to use that which is hard to quantify to prove
some point? I did NOT invent that clip that John had posted.
It was there, and you may assume WHATEVER you wish
from it. I'm sure John has already done so. It's strange
that articles from recognized sources are dismissed by you
when they don't meet your agenda.
> One academic
> study I read a few years ago dealt with the difficulty.
Oh so VERY LONG ago!!!!
> One feature of American life, compared to Europe, is that
> the work week
> has been increasing over the decades.
WHAT???? You're mad of course. But even if that
were true, man's efforts should not be directed to
ONLY finding leisure and lazy pursuits. That's obviously
not the purpose we were placed on this planet for. I
can assure you that citizens on MY planet, do not
feel that way. Rather than finding work a drudge, they
try to find work which instead consumes their interest.
<mindless repetition clipped>
PV
Earl
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9uspoo$12f$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <RojQ7.2978$ga.2...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>, "Duncan Idaho"
> <Barri...@socal.rr.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > Too bad that no one has produced any scientific evidence that UV-B radiation
> > striking the Earth's surface has increased.
>
> Wrong again, the science is there and Duncan is not "all there". He
> dodged the following articles for days and then pooh-poohed it.
>
> Anyway the info is getting to the general public in the news mags.
> Look for "UV-B" on a google search, and also "ozone hole" for more
> direct data. I found no site yet that takes idiot-boy's stance.
> The original article has a nice map showing the extent of the hole
> and its overlapping into South America
>
>
> *****
>
> Under the Hole in the Sky
> A modest city copes with harmful ultraviolet rays
> By Jimmy Langman
>
> NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONALDec. 3 issue < Maria Alvarado can tell whether itąs a
> green-light day or an orange-light day or, as happens more frequently these
> days in the Chilean town of Punta Arenas, the worldąs most southerly city, a
> red-light day. Alvarado, 35, works 12-hour shifts in the streets of Punta
> Arenas keeping track of parked cars. She knows what it means when the sky
> turns eerily white and the sunąs reflection off the surface of cars, windows
> and the sea becomes downright blinding. It means that the hole in the
> Earthąs ozone layer is right smack overhead: itąs a red-light day.
>
>
> TO THE REST of the world, the ominously expanding Antarctic ozone hole
> was dispatched with the worldwide ban on the use of ozone-depleting
> substances in 1987< one of the 20th centuryąs biggest environmental
> victories. To the 120,000 residents of Punta Arenas, the ozone hole is a
> local nightmare. Each spring it still swells to about the size of North
> America, just nipping the southern coast of Chile. As variable as the
> weather, the hole makes sudden visits to the city. For days at a time, the
> sunąs harsh ultraviolet rays, with no ozone shield to stop them, beat
> directly down on residents.
>
> To the 120,000 residents of Punta Arenas, the ozone hole is a local
> nightmare.
>
> A few decades ago sunburns and skin cancer were virtually
> nonexistent in this cloudy, windy region. The expanding ozone hole changed
> all that. Since 1986 Punta Arenas has had more than 150 days in which 25
> percent or more of the ozone layer was absent and a handful in which the
> loss exceeded 50 percent. Scientists report an even higher intensity of
> so-called UV-B rays, a particularly carcinogenic frequency of UV radiation.
> Skin cancer has soared 66 percent in the past seven years. Since UV-related
> disorders take decades to surface, the true impact may not be known for
> years. łItąs like being placed on top of a high mountain without any time to
> acclimatize,˛ says Jaime Abarca, the cityąs only dermatologist. łPeople
> living here just donąt have time to adapt.˛
>
> For years the city was reluctant to take action, in part from fear
> of scaring away tourists headed to nearby penguin colonies and other
> attractions. In 1998 health department officials devised the łsolar
> stoplight˛ to give residents warning of intense periods of UV radiation.
> From September through December (the spring months), they activate actual
> stoplights in schools and businesses, and issue updates to local newspapers,
> television stations and radio stations. The solar stoplight has four colors:
> green (normal), yellow (wear a hat and sunglasses), orange (apply sunscreen)
> and red (stay in the shade łas much as possible˛). But the vast majority of
> residents ignore the color-coded warnings. Children play soccer underneath
> el agujero (the hole). A recent survey revealed that more than 60 percent of
> residents have never used sunscreen and only 42 percent even own sunglasses.
> Theories abound as to why people are so stubborn: theyąre afraid to stand
> out from the crowd, they canąt afford hats or sunscreen, they donąt believe
> the problem is as bad as the government says.
>
> To raise awareness, local authorities have organized workshops for
> people who work outdoors. The health departmentąs ozone-education program
> tells citizens that they should learn to live with the ozone hole as if łit
> is our friend.˛ łThere is nothing else they can do,˛ says director Lidia
> Amarales. More stoplights and education projects are planned, but resources
> are limited.
>
> Newsweek International December 10 Issue ? ATLANTIC EDITION: News and
> features from Europe, Africa and the Middle East
>
See --
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm
An interesting fact from NASA "December 12, 2000 --
After reaching a record-breaking size in mid-September,
the ozone hole over Antarctica has made a surprisingly
hasty retreat, disappearing completely by November
19, NASA scientists said. Seems like the recuperative
powers of our planet are still largely misunderstood.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:PwqQ7.15915$ez6.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:FoqQ7.19534$oj3.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Ummmm.... That's CRAPOLA. Shit!!!!
<clipped>
> Well yes but even I did not think you would savage
> your own post so viciously!
Ouch... you got me.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3c11...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > "A Plenary Verbositor" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Duncan Idaho" wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Here in Orange County you can get housing, clean
> > > > housing, for between $600-900/month.
> > >
> same
> > > there since all them commies and wetbacks voted out "B-1 Bob," right?
> By
> > > the way, how's that Red Chinese army hiding in Mexico doing? Surely a
> bit
> > > long in the tooth by now...
> > >
> > I guess you just keep swigging that wood alky, hey? Sorry, got to go.
> The
> > Black Helicopters with the UN troops aboard are coming. They are filled
> > with big smiling Swedes with blue UN helmets (and they are armedd to the
> > teeth) who will occupy us while we sleep, and deprive us of our guns and
> > Bibles.
> > --
>
> Touche!
>
> I usually don't cross-post, preferring to tweak the trolls' tails in
> alt.activism.death-penalty. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
> But I do a serious post once in awhile, like now.
>
> My reading of your posts left me undecided as to whether you were a nut,
> as opposed to a rational adult who happens to have a more ideological than
> pragmatic view of human affairs. Public usenet being what it is, only
> "rough sorting" methods can be employed to clarify such ambiguities. One
> way to "rough sort" is to see how a poster responds to ribbing. Generally,
> nuts have at best a puerile sense of humor, and regard self-effacing humor
> as an oxymoron. Another way of putting it is that as long as you can find
> things about yourself to laugh at, you're probably sane. I reiterate that
> this is just a "rule of thumb," as I do recall (for example) reading that
> the LooneyTune signoff ("Th-th-th-that's all, folks!") was once plagerized
> in a suicide note.
>
> Since I'm now satisfied by your response that you're not a nut, you have
> no tail to be tweaked. But at the same time, I find more basic similarities
> than differences between how you and Earl approach issues. For example,
> consider the "Ozone Hole." Science never accepts anything as absolute fact,
> it only deals in theories which become more likely to the extent they
> survive progressive testing. For example, no human has ever intuitively
> understood the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The likely explanation is
> that there has never been any evolutionary pressure on humans to grasp what
> occurs on the subatomic level. It can only be understood in a *scientific*
> way, i.e. that it has thus far defied every experiment designed to disprove
> it, and has predicted the outcome of experiments premised on it.
>
> The destruction of ozone by CFCs was validated by laboratory experiments
> in which every effort was made to duplicate upper atmosphere conditions.
> CFCs are extremely rare in nature, their presence in the atmosphere could
> only be attributed to humans. That is known because we have samples of
> earth's atmosphere going back thousands of years from air pockets in glacial
> ice. Although CFCs are an extremely minor component of the atmosphere,
> their persistence (estimated at several decades) more than compensates in
> their destructive effect.
>
> CFCs were being manufactured for refrigeration. There were alternatives
> available, albeit somewhat more expensive. An earth "twin study" could not
> be conducted. So with the weight of scientific investigation pointing to
> CFCs as the Ozone Hole culprit, the possibility that they weren't was simply
> not worth the gamble.
>
> There are times when ideology must yield to common sense, and the treaty
> banning CFCs serves as a prime example of that.
> So no more ideological rants about the Ozone Hole, OK?
>
>
There is no question that CFC's affect the ozone layer.
What is uncertain is the 'sky is falling' attitude which
surrounds the politicizing of scientific investigation in
this matter.
CRAPOLA. See
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2000/12/12042000/upi_ozone_40570.asp
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm
An interesting fact from NASA "December 12, 2000 --
After reaching a record-breaking size in mid-September,
the ozone hole over Antarctica has made a surprisingly
hasty retreat, disappearing completely by November
19, NASA scientists said.
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/missoz/index.html
(see especially 'recovery of the ozone layer.'
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/antarc/aozone92000.htm
Duncan Idaho
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:RkxQ7.22225$oj3.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > the work week
> > has been increasing over the decades.
>
> WHAT???? You're mad of course. But even if that
> were true, man's efforts should not be directed to
> ONLY finding leisure and lazy pursuits. That's obviously
> not the purpose we were placed on this planet for. I
> can assure you that citizens on MY planet, do not
> feel that way. Rather than finding work a drudge, they
> try to find work which instead consumes their interest.
>
economic freedom, such that there is little opportunity for most people to
advance themselves. When you combine that with murderous taxes, there is in
fact very little incentive in Europe for the average worker to do more than
put in the mandatory hours, which in France is less than 40 hrs./week. In
America, by contrast, many workers find themselves in dynamic young
companies which provide great opportunities for economic and career
advancement. This is well-documented in the stock options and other equity
sharing programs that are ubiquitous in America, and almost entirely absent
in Europe. Naturally, these American workers are motivated to work harder,
and work longer hours. How else to convince one's employer to give that
bigger bonus, or award those stock options! Thus, even American workers at
fairly low levels are sometimes able to share in the risks and rewards of
entrepreneurship. Often this works out wonderfully. Sometimes it does not,
as in the case of Enron. Free choice inherently means that sometimes people
make bad choices. Europe avoids the problems and opportunities that this
economic freedom provides in exchange for polite economic servitude. Earl,
a Government employee, likes this stagnant system and in fact left America
for it. Most of the human capital flows in the opposite direction: tens of
thousands of Europeans vote with their feet each year and come to America to
enjoy its economic freedoms in order to realize their full potential. A few
risk-averse leisure seekers (a term coined by Judge Posner, a noted economic
thinker in America) go in the opposite direction. Earl is one of these.
The reason that France has a per-capita GDP that is half-again as small as
America's is not that France lacks bright citizens, natural resources, or
infrastructure. France in common with much of Europe inhibits the ability
of each individual to realize his or her potential, and stifles the right of
its citizens to take risks and exercise economic choice. The result is
Eurosclerosis.
--
Roger J. Buffington
--
"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10
empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." --
President George W. Bush
A Plenary Verbositor
>
> "A Plenary Verbositor" wrote:
> > "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> >
> > > Just a little advice on how the 'game' is played here, Roger.
> > > You will find that 'A Plenary Verbositor' has neither
> > > intelligence nor respect here. In fact, he once claimed
> > > 'some' murderers are 'good.'
> >
> > Tell the truth just once and shame the devil, you incorrigible
clownjob.
> > You pompously proclaimed there was no such thing as a "good murderer,"
> > forgetting your previous proclamations that no killing ever poses a
moral
> > issue.
>
> Need I say - CRAPOLA... EVERY killing (including lawful
> executions and self-defense killings) poses a moral issue.
> I've never said otherwise.
Your mendacity is limitless:
"There's nothing moral about the killing of any human. Self-defense,
unavoidable accident, murder, or execution."
"Planet Visitor" on the "How Can We Expect?" thread (July 31, 2001).
.
> In fact in that SAME thread,
> I posted ---- "suppose you are a law enforcement member,
> and you are confronted with a terrorist with an automatic
> weapon who is spraying a crowd of people with that weapon.
> Should you take the 'wrong' action of killing that terrorist?
> Of course, I recognize and accept subjectively that 'killing
> is wrong,' in the selective individual sense. The execution
> of a murderer is 'wrong' in a subjective moral sense to me.
> NO KILLING OF A HUMAN IS 'RIGHT' in a moral sense to
> me."
And thereby affirmed no killing poses a moral issue for you.
>
>
> > Rather than skewer you with that, I asked you to explain why
> > Rasputin's murderers were "bad." You had no answer, thus
> > proving once more what was already painfully evident: You
> > don't post, you bray.
> >
> This was the EXACT dialog --
>
> PV wrote --
> "I've never heard of a 'good' murderer. Perhaps you can enlighten
> us as to that 'good' guy who murders. And then we can have a
> REALLY lively discussion." to another poster.
>
> You burst in with an insult to both me and the moral
> concept we ordinarily hold toward murder with ---
> "You are indeed a galaxy-class turkey. Try Rasputin's
> murderers for starters. ROTFL!"
You hold no "moral concepts" (sic) towards any kind of killing, you just
posture and contradict yourself from post to post. Face it: you *are* a
galaxy-class turkey.
> Now if YOU believe Rasputin's murderers were 'good'
> murderers, then perhaps....
<red herring hypothetical snipped>
> MURDER IS NOT GOOD. MURDERERS ARE NOT GOOD.
> Believing that to not be true, is to renounce civilization.
>
> PV
>
So tell everybody why you believe Rasputin's murderers were "bad." You've
had over four months to think about it now. And at least *try* to be
truthful.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A Planet Visitor
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3c12...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> > "A Plenary Verbositor" wrote:
>
> > > "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just a little advice on how the 'game' is played here, Roger.
> > > > You will find that 'A Plenary Verbositor' has neither
> > > > intelligence nor respect here. In fact, he once claimed
> > > > 'some' murderers are 'good.'
> > >
> > > Tell the truth just once and shame the devil, you incorrigible
> clownjob.
> > > You pompously proclaimed there was no such thing as a "good murderer,"
> > > forgetting your previous proclamations that no killing ever poses a
> moral
> > > issue.
> >
> > Need I say - CRAPOLA... EVERY killing (including lawful
> > executions and self-defense killings) poses a moral issue.
> > I've never said otherwise.
>
> Your mendacity is limitless:
>
Apparently, as is your ignorance.
> "There's nothing moral about the killing of any human. Self-defense,
> unavoidable accident, murder, or execution."
>
As usual, it is YOU who has taken those words out of
context, in the manner of ymt, who is also a moron.
This is the entire thought I posted --
"Ummmm. Because they murdered?? And you're trying to
put a 'moral' 'immoral' face on the CONCEPT by proposing
that if one outcome of the concept is seen by me as immoral,
I must reject the concept completely, regardless of how
moral I see the overall concept. It's rather silly on your
part to assume such. There is NOTHING moral about
the killing of ANY human. Self-defense, unavoidable auto
accident, murder, or execution. The loss of all life in
this manner should cause us to grieve. But the CONCEPT
rises above that grief. Because of what I wrote at the
beginning of this dialog --- "the end justifies the means if
execution of a murderer prevents that murderer from
murdering again."
Thus, there is obviously a great consistency to both
statements. It poses a moral problem... but there is
NOTHING moral about the killing of any human. If
one UNDERSTANDS (of course, you do not, having
claimed that some murderers are 'good'), that morality
is subjective. The first statement reflects that such
killing REQUIRES a subjective moral examination
by every person. It is a moral PROBLEM requiring
a moral examination. I see that as 'objective,' and find it
impossible (of course, with the exception of your good
self), that a human would NOT form a subjective viewpoint
of EVERY killing. The second statement, which had been
taken out of context, is of course, MY subjective opinion.
In any case, there is nothing inconsistent about saying
that it is necessary that one FORM a subjective opinion
regarding every killing, and quite another to say that MY
subjective opinion finds nothing moral, in the sense of an
individual killing. Although I quite well may find it moral
in the larger context of 'preservation of self,' and 'society
self-defense.'
> "Planet Visitor" on the "How Can We Expect?" thread (July 31, 2001).
>
> .
> > In fact in that SAME thread,
> > I posted ---- "suppose you are a law enforcement member,
> > and you are confronted with a terrorist with an automatic
> > weapon who is spraying a crowd of people with that weapon.
> > Should you take the 'wrong' action of killing that terrorist?
> > Of course, I recognize and accept subjectively that 'killing
> > is wrong,' in the selective individual sense. The execution
> > of a murderer is 'wrong' in a subjective moral sense to me.
> > NO KILLING OF A HUMAN IS 'RIGHT' in a moral sense to
> > me."
>
> And thereby affirmed no killing poses a moral issue for you.
Ummm... If I accept 'subjectively' that 'killing is wrong.'
I am stating "no killing of a human is 'right' in a moral sense
to me," RIGHT is moral. Therefore, I have most certainly
affirmed that killing poses a moral issue to me.
> >
> >
> > > Rather than skewer you with that, I asked you to explain why
> > > Rasputin's murderers were "bad." You had no answer, thus
> > > proving once more what was already painfully evident: You
> > > don't post, you bray.
> > >
> > This was the EXACT dialog --
> >
> > PV wrote --
> > "I've never heard of a 'good' murderer. Perhaps you can enlighten
> > us as to that 'good' guy who murders. And then we can have a
> > REALLY lively discussion." to another poster.
> >
> > You burst in with an insult to both me and the moral
> > concept we ordinarily hold toward murder with ---
> > "You are indeed a galaxy-class turkey. Try Rasputin's
> > murderers for starters. ROTFL!"
>
> You hold no "moral concepts" (sic) towards any kind of killing, you just
> posture and contradict yourself from post to post. Face it: you *are* a
> galaxy-class turkey.
>
You're just full of crap as usual. Skewed by the irrationality
of your own thoughts. You couldn't even come up with an
original handle, finding it necessary to alter another's.
That's the method of a 'galaxy-class turkey.' Next thing
you know, you'll be creating a web-site in my honor.
Your handle itself demonstrates that you haven't a clue
as to my arguments and just wish to troll. But that doesn't
make ME look stupid... it makes YOU look stupid.
Especially when you claim MURDER is 'GOOD.'
> > Now if YOU believe Rasputin's murderers were 'good'
> > murderers, then perhaps....
>
> <red herring hypothetical snipped>
>
Yeah... clip that 'red herring,' you ignorant hypocrite.
> > MURDER IS NOT GOOD. MURDERERS ARE NOT GOOD.
> > Believing that to not be true, is to renounce civilization.
> >
> > PV
> >
> So tell everybody why you believe Rasputin's murderers were "bad." You've
> had over four months to think about it now. And at least *try* to be
> truthful.
I never THOUGHT about it at all, as I do with most of the
garbage you spew out. Simply that I recognized and
remembered that you had demonstrated a severe
form of mental defect. Rasputin's murderers were
'bad' because MURDER is 'BAD,' in my subjective
view. Now if YOU feel MURDER is 'GOOD' in your
subjective view, then you can read again the 'red
herring' that you conveniently clipped. You will find
that my posting here was to WARN Roger of your
obvious dementia, and nothing else, until you began
to spout your venom again. I posted to Roger that
you had In fact, once claimed 'some' murderers are
'good.' Rasputin's murderers being among that group.
I see you only reinforcing that moral choice
now... perhaps YOU can explain why MURDER is
GOOD? You're just Sooooo easy!!!
PV
Mike Blackford
>
> "A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3c11...@post.usenet.com...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> > "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> >
> > > Just a little advice on how the 'game' is played here, Roger.
> > > You will find that 'A Plenary Verbositor' has neither
> > > intelligence nor respect here. In fact, he once claimed
> > > 'some' murderers are 'good.'
> >
> > Tell the truth just once and shame the devil, you incorrigible clownjob.
> > You pompously proclaimed there was no such thing as a "good murderer,"
> > forgetting your previous proclamations that no killing ever poses a moral
> > issue.
>
> Need I say - CRAPOLA... EVERY killing (including lawful
> executions and self-defense killings) poses a moral issue.
Unfortunately, folks are all too willing to "start the clock" at a time
that rationalizes the wrong, for them at least, and avoid seeing the
perpetual fools errand of ...
if two wrongs don't make a right, maybe three will ...
if three wrongs don't make a right, maybe four will ...
if four wrongs don't make a right, maybe five will ...
[...]
if two million wrongs don't make a right, maybe two million and one
will ...
[...]
and we keep on counting.
There is no "right" in killing people. Ever.
Such is what tragedy is made of. "Good" people do "bad" things.
It has alwys been so. Because we haven't yet learned.
No matter how often we're taught ... but only on the Sabbath, of course.
"There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning."
-- Jimmy Buffet
--
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their
democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism ó ownership
of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling
private power." óó Franklin Delano Roosevelt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zvxr Oynpxsbeq Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn zv...@oynpxsbeq.pbz
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <3C127F02...@bellatlantic.net>, ken...@shangrila.net a
écrit :
With regard to dunkhead's statement
>> making $1,000/month is making about $6.25/hr. This is close to the minimum
>> wage, and is less than burger flippers make in California, where housing
>> costs about what Earl cites or a little less.
Minimum wage is 5:15, except of on is a waitress, then it is around 2:50
plus tips, if the tips don:t make minimum the boss brings it up to minimum.
There are a lot of poor employed in the levels just above minimum, in the
6-7 dollar an hour range. Note also that fringe benefits, like health
insurance is often not accorded to the lower income groups. One woman
ěn the South Central area of LA I know (a member of a minority group)
employed at about $20,000 a year would not afford the medical insurance
for herself and two children. The premiums proposed were in access of
her rent! This is why some 40-50,000,000 go without coverage in the
USA. In France even the burger flippers are on our medical insurance
system, ranked number one by WHO.
> Of course Orange County is one of the more expensive places to live in the
> country.
The populated areas of California have expensive housing. But as I said
housing is the most important problem to the poor, in the 1950s it was
more likely food.
>I have a friend whose wife is an executive with Fox, who recently
> moved to Manhattan Beach from Wichita. In Wichita he owned a beautiful large
> house in a
> walled in community near the northeast corner of the city. It would have been
>a
> gated community except that no one wanted to bother with a gate. In Manhattan
> Beach he has a much smaller house. In fact, he doesn't even have a spare
> bedroom for his daughter. He is not poor or close to poor. I have seen
> comparisons with my own area and MB is about four times more expensive. Right
> now a 1br, 66 sq m apartment in a fairly crummy Washington D. C. neighborhood
is
> advertised for $850/month. I'm wondering what kind of broom closet with
pisspot can be had for that in Orange County.
>> I did a Lexis search earlier today on news stories dealing with "Negative
>> Income Tax proposals" Nothing at all came up. As usual, Earl is simply
>> spouting Greenhouse Gas.
I did a google search and came up with 600 references using "Lawrence Mead
negative income tax",
Using "proposal" may have screwed up the search for Bluffy. I posted
Friedman's comments on this site for PV. I remember him being one of
the early one's proposing a negative income tax scheme.
Bluffy is never thorough, he wants to post stuff which only satisfies
his projuduces. I proposed that he look into Mead a little deeper
since Mead's opinion probably go along with some of Bluffy`s.
Perhaps living in Orange County promotes brain death!
Earl
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <nuvQ7.21430$oj3.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
PV,your goat is gotten easily. I like your paling up with Bluffy, a
Tweedledee Twiddle DUMB situation. You keep me laughing, the more
flustered you get the happier I am.
Long live dirtdog.
Earl
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <wXsQ7.475$Ha.3...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>, "Duncan Idaho"
<Barri...@socal.rr.com> a écrit :
> By this asinine standard, my son and daughter are homeless. God, you know I
> think you could give Earl a laxative and then fit him in a matchbox.
It is not my definition, but people who study the problem. There is a
spectrum of homeless. When the mayor of NY opened up housing for the
homeless, some of these people came out of the wood work so the system
had to decide which "homeless" are in an urgent situation. Mothers with
children were high priority.
Earl
Gaston
> As Jigsaw pointed out, with Earl
> being a slumlord, Earl should have these figures right at
> his fingertips.
Now, there you see it folks! The level of PV`s research.
I am now a slumlord, according to both Jigsaw and backed up
by PV.
What is interesting is the PV recognizes my having "these figures
right on his fingertips".
Not quite, but I have books within reach that have statistics
which back up what I say.
My opposition does what?
Jigsaw clearly does no research.
Duncan Dunkhead can`t quote chapter and verse in the social area
or even quote anything. He constantly makes statements without
any citation backup.
PV "does" research, usually after the fact of my having pointed
out something. He often even gets it wrong, he could find no mention
of an association of Mead with the idea of a negative income tax
(or one of its income subsidizing derivatives). He is not good with
numbers and grabs and runs with things before thinking them out.
And then he picks up jokes or rumors, like Jigsaw's made in jest
statement about my being a slumlord and tries to promote it as fact.
Worse, he can`t accept his student relationship with his teacher, me.
Should I give him a honest "F" or a generous "D-".
Earl
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <2_sQ7.476$Ha.3...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>, "Duncan Idaho"
<Barri...@socal.rr.com> a écrit :
>
> "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> news:9ut7d6$70$1...@neon.noos.net...
>> The reason by the American workweek has been going up
>> is tied up in the particular form of capitalism in America. It is merely
>> cheaper for the system to keep people working longer. It is not by
>> choice,
>> that was clearly established in Schor's book.
>
> I'll bet it was. God what crap.
If you haven`t read it how can you judge it! Schor compares working years
with Europe also, which have been going down. She published the book in
1990 or so, so the data does not include anything from the last 10 years.
But a newpaper article a couple of weeks ago said that the workweek had
gone up in the USA compared to 1990. On page 29 of her book she has
a table showing that the work year in 1969 was 1786 hours and 1949
in 1989.
Even those statistics have to be read with care since she shows that there
are two catagories of workers in the statistics, those who work the total
year and those who work off and on. For full time workers, the number of
work weeks rose from 43.9 to 47.1 from 1969 to 89. The main drive for
pushing the average work week up is the entry of women in to the work force.
Another important factor is that people earn overtime over 40 hours, this
almost favors dogging it for the first 40 until one can really start making
money in the post-40 hour period.
Social pressures in Europe have been general for reducing the number of
work, vacations in most European countries are mandated by law at
4 or 5 weeks a year. That begins during the first year on the job, not
after 20 years in the US, if at all. The Unions played an important part
in this
social advance, plus the role of socialists in European social thinking.
Earl
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <BFsQ7.472$Ha.3...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>, "Duncan Idaho"
<Barri...@socal.rr.com> a écrit :
> Orange County is a strange and small world, getting away from it was not
>> big a deal. But it does have a reputation for small mindedness and so
>> Dunkhead is at home.
>>
>> Earl
>
> Notice that Earl has now degenerated from spewing incomprehensible BS to
> simple personal attacks. This is indicative of the frontiers of his ability
> to contribute to any discussion.
Does the area have that reputation or not? It also has had the reputation of
electing real ding-a-ling respresentatives. When we lived there is was
an area for the John Birch Society. Are you a charter member?
Earl
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <ECvQ7.21482$oj3.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>> > Hours hourly earnings Weekly earnings
>> > 1969 37.7 3.04 114.61
>> > 1972 37.0 3.70 136.90
>> > 1975 36.1 4.53 163.53
>> > 1978 35.8 5.69 203.70
>> > 1981 35.2 7.25 255.20
>> > 1984 35.2 8.32 292.86
>> > 1987 34.8 8.98 312.50
>> > 1990 34.5 10.01 345.35
>> > 1993 34.5 10.83 373.64
>> > 1996 34.5 11.82 406.61
>>
>> These are NOT corrected for inflation.
>>
> I never said they were.
Typically misleading on your part.
I was curious how you would dodge this misinformation.
You may have missed this posting, note how I always try and
specify inflation corrected figures.
********
Minium wages, in terms of CONSTANT 1996 dollars have been dropping, reaching
a hight of $7.21 in 1968 and dropping to $4.72 in 2000, with a low of $4.24
in 1989 at the end of the Reagan "greed is good period.
I will also mentioned Katherine Newman`s seminal work called łFalling from
Grace, Downward Mobility
in the Age of Affluence˛. In "No Shame is my Game" she gives the example
of
a 22 yr old black man, Jamal, who can only find a job flipping hamburgers.
He has worked at a variety of
jobs, even in a car factory but is locked into NY with a wife and a baby.
In a good month he earned (1997) $680, his rent is $300 for a single room in
Harlem and behind in his rent as is. Housing costs are the most
significant part of the poor`s expenses. Some rant on about the poor not
being poor because they possess TV sets, microwaves and a variety of low
cost consumer items but not about their housing costs. In Jamal`s case NY
authorities took their baby away from he and his wife for mistreatment but
will let the child back into their possession when they have proper living
facilities which would cost about $600/month (1997) for a one room
apartment at the cheapest in a crummy area. A $600 apartment on a $680
income!
Typically the poor in the NY area pay about 60% of the income out on rent.
And Jamal`s yearly income puts him in the poverty class.
Whether or not Jamal and his wife receive food stamps is not discussed, big
deal considering the depth of poverty they are already in. In a poorly
heated building with holes in the floors and visits from the local rats,
this looks like total poverty. But these authors want łreal poverty˛, not
this high living stuff. The problem in the US is that anybody working at
the minimum wage is earning about 40% of the medium income, and since the
poverty line is at 50% they are earning poverty wages, they are the working
poor. The minimum wage average in Europe has been set at around 60% in
order to give working person a living wage. łLiving wage˛, remember that
expression. Clearly Jamal could be earning 30%, perhaps 50% more and still
not be out of poverty. He can`t earn enough to pay $600 a month in rent and
get his kid back. His bootstraps aren`t there.
I may return to the working poor issue in a later posting after completing
Newman`s book. Now I will return to wage stagnation. She has updated some
of the statistics from her 1988 book.
The table I took from Newman`s book was one I reported on before but now
updates. This is łPerceived financial well-being˛, 1984-1994. Newman`s
early book covered the period from 1970 on, but this table is updated to
łnow˛, and also is web available (www.icpsr.edu/gss/trend/finalter.htm). I
have not yet checked this address since Newman has it in her books.
These statistics show that about 40% (36.6% in Ś96) think things are
łgetting better˛, the remaining 60% think things are łthe same or getting
worse˛. That proportion has remained the same not only in this time period
but since 1970. These latter sentiments go against the illusion of the
American dream.
The next set of numbers "I love" is the median income shifts in the USA from
1987-96.
For full time male workers, the number was $37,568 in 1987, by 1996 this
group drifted downwards to $34,463. HOWEVER, women did better, their 1987
medium incomes went from $24,362 to $24,803, and increase of a whole $441.
Big deal. One might think families, where multiple incomes are now a
necessity, things were better but for the same time period went from $42,775
in 1987 to $42,300 in 1996.
Another Table which gives a dynamic feeling of what happens to the
individual as one gets old is how earnings increased for men.
Year Age 30 Income at age 40 income at Age 50 income
1949 $16,683 $26,415 $34,323
1960 $23,896 $35,598 $38,079
1975 $30,813 $36,976 $36,637
1985 $27,713 $32,348
1995 $24,306
What one sees is that since 1975 the incomes received at 30 decreased from
$30,813 to $24,306. The 30 yr olds "entry" income has slipped by $6000
in the 75-95 period.
Part of this might be that enough men stayed in the educational
world to effect the numbers, we all know perpetual graduate students. Still
they did not make up for it by the age of 40 whose average incomes had
dropped from $36,976 in 1985 to $32,348. All this is not stagnation but
downward movement for near beginners. In 1995, stagnation had reached a
point where the 50 year old salary earner had a decrease from 1985 to 95,
$36,976 to $36,637. It is anybody`s guess what the future holds for the
average guy, CEOs and stock optioners excepted.
Finally PV mentioned one set of figures but nothing on overall changes
occurring.
If this argument goes I will publish more and more bad news for the American
cultural propagandists.
Earl
Gaston
--
----------
Dans l'article <sCcQ7.16210$oj3.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>
>> As Jigsaw pointed out, with Earl
> being a slumlord, Earl should have these figures right at
> his fingertips.
> PV
>
Dictionary definition of slumlord, from Webster's Dictionary: "An absentee
landlord of slum dwellings, esp. one who charges inflated rents and neglects
upkeep."
Unless you have the figures to prove that "Earl is a slumlord", you're being
slanderous. You should watch your mouth.
Gaston
Duncan Idaho
> Social pressures in Europe have been general for reducing the number of
> work, vacations in most European countries are mandated by law at
> 4 or 5 weeks a year. That begins during the first year on the job, not
> after 20 years in the US, if at all. The Unions played an important part
> in this
> social advance, plus the role of socialists in European social thinking.
>
> Earl
Sure, and no doubt you think that the expense of 5 week vacations are paid
for by archangels. If my business had to pay for 5 week vacations for our
staff we would probably go out of business. In actual fact, we would fire
the employees and do without them. Crap like government-mandated 5 week
vacations is precisely the reason that Europe produces very few new
businesses, no new industries, and why it creates very few new jobs compared
with America.
You may call it progress. It is really stagnation and meddling. Meddling
by government employees who wouldn't even know how to run a lemonade stand
if they had to cut the mustard in a free marketplace.
--
Roger J. Buffington
_________________
--
"Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?"-
Sen. Bob Kerry, D-Nebraska
Duncan Idaho
>
> Does the area have that reputation or not? It also has had the reputation
of
> electing real ding-a-ling respresentatives. When we lived there is was
> an area for the John Birch Society. Are you a charter member?
>
> Earl
What a twerp. Well, you are partly right--we do have one ding-a-ling
representative in Orange County. Loretta Sanchez.
--
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /"
('( ' ' _~/
\ '
'\' \ _7
\ (
\ \
Roger J. Buffington
Duncan Idaho
"Gaston" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:9uvi9s$kao$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> Dictionary definition of slumlord, from Webster's Dictionary: "An absentee
> landlord of slum dwellings, esp. one who charges inflated rents and
neglects
> upkeep."
>
> Unless you have the figures to prove that "Earl is a slumlord", you're
being
> slanderous. You should watch your mouth.
>
> Gaston
Watch out folks--that is a veiled threat that Earl might sue you for libel.
What a toad.
In point of fact, Earl has been running his mouth without engaging his brain
for a long time on this forum. For example, after citing Newsweek and some
rinky dink EPA website, he accuses me of not providing any cites for
anything in the ozone hole discussion. Kind of an Adolf Hitler "Big Lie"
approach. Earl feels (as Hitler did) that if he tells enough lies enough
times, Earl's lies will become a passable substitute for truth.
As far as the Ozone Hole discussion goes, science indicates that there has
been no increase in UV-B radiation on the Earth's surface. Cites: A.
Robinson "Access
to Energy" 1994 (showing that EPA studies seeking to correllate Ozone Hole
with UV-B levels failed to do so); Maduro & Shaurhammer "The Holes in the
Ozone Scare" 21st Century Science Assts.; S. Fred Singer "Shaky Science is
Scarier than Ozone Scare" Insight March 28, 1994; Steven Penkett "UV Levels
Down Not Up" Nature Vol 341 Sep.1989.
I've only provided these and other cites a dozen or more times on this
forum. And yet Earl continues to spread the lie that I have provided no
cites at all. I suppose saying this relieves Earl from the burden of
engaging his brain before running off at the mouth.
--
Roger J. Buffington
---------------------------------
"The two most abundant things in the universe are
hydrogen and stupidity."
~~Harlan Ellison
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message news:mqm41ug83brgtl3tq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:02:16 GMT, "Duncan Idaho"
>> <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> <rest snipped>
>
>> You, my son, are all wind and piss.
>>
>ROTFLMAO... pot...kettle...black.
> Although I
>well know you are trolling,
ROTFLMAO... pot...kettle...black.
<snipped>
>PV
Anyway, WTF is CARPOOL?
w00f
dirtdog
<Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>The reason that France has a per-capita GDP that is half-again as small as
>America's is not that France lacks bright citizens, natural resources, or
>infrastructure. France in common with much of Europe inhibits the ability
>of each individual to realize his or her potential, and stifles the right of
>its citizens to take risks and exercise economic choice. The result is
>Eurosclerosis.
>
What a twat.
>--
>Roger J. Buffington
Gimme a hell yeah!
w00f
JIGSAW1695
>From: "Gaston" dev...@noos.fr
>Date: 12/9/01 7:34 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <9uvi9s$kao$1...@neon.noos.net>
Looks like Earls dog is working the net.
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9uv5v5$qag$1...@neon.noos.net...
demonstrative of the limited capacity of YOUR brain.
BTW -- I believe I need to get you flustered again --
I think you're a SLUMLORD. Talk to dirt... he's a
lawyer... you might be able to sue me. But don't ask
him 'what kind of lawyer, are you?' Again... ROTFLMAO.
PV
> Earl
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message news:f6q61ugs36i7ful7h...@4ax.com...
PV
w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Gaston" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9uvi9s$kao$1...@neon.noos.net...
slumlord...slumload...slumlord... slumlord
slumlord...slumload...slumlord... slumlord
slumlord...slumload...slumlord... slumlord
slumlord...slumload...slumlord... slumlord
slumlord...slumload...slumlord... slumlord
slumlord...slumload...slumlord... slumlord
slumlord...slumload...slumlord... slumlord
slumlord...slumload...slumlord... slumlord
You idiot... sue me!! And don't try and tell
me YOU'RE not getting hysterical.
PV
> Gaston
>
Earl
----------
Dans l'article <RkxQ7.22225$oj3.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>> One feature of American life, compared to Europe, is that
>> the work week
>> has been increasing over the decades.
In the USA, of course.
> WHAT???? You're mad of course.
Mad at a system which was not concerned with the quality of family life.
I posted the numbers twice, those out of Schor`s book on the overworked
American. This is a whole book devoted to the subject; and why it occurs
uniquely in the USA. Schor gave figures of the increase from the 1786
hours in 1969 to 1949 in 1989. This is Schor`s own research.
From a recent International Herald Tribune, the increase is said to
be from 1942 in 1990 to 1979 in 2000. There is a slight difference
between the IHT source and Schor`s. Whatever, the US work week has
been going up. Another feature of the American work "week" is that
the salaried employees are putting in extra unpaid hours. This went
up from 1970 on.
******
The article original article was written by Steven Greenhouse.
*********
From 1990 to 2000 the Americans are working longer, the number
of hours per year have gone from 1942 to 1979, or 49 and one half
work weeks per year, of 40 hours.
The Japanese now even work less, having gone fro 2031 to 1842.
The even lazier Germans have gone from 1573 to 1480.
As for productivity, amount accomplished when working the
French came out first with $33.71 followed by the Belges
($32.98) and then the Americans ($32.84).
A Planet Visitor
"Mike Blackford" <mblac...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3C130EE9...@spamcop.net...
That's simply idiotic. It one wrong can PREVENT
other wrongs, the use of that wrong is entirely appropriate.
You simply decided to keep adding up the 'wrong'
without any consideration of the GREATER benefit
which might exist by using that wrong.
I will present you with an example : INDIVIDUAL
self-defense. It is 'wrong' to kill a person, but it
is NOT wrong to prevent them from killing you.
There is a GREATER benefit to be derived by
doing such a 'wrong,' then would be realized
by not doing it. You would, of course, BE DEAD,
should you decide that you must not do it,
because you see it as 'wrong.'
>
> There is no "right" in killing people. Ever.
CRAPOLA. There is 'wrong' in the sense that killing
of a human is wrong. ANY HUMAN. But in the larger
context, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the
'wrong' in that killing, is far OUTWEIGHED by the
benefit of 'right' to an individual or society.
> Such is what tragedy is made of. "Good" people do "bad" things.
> It has alwys been so. Because we haven't yet learned.
> No matter how often we're taught ... but only on the Sabbath, of course.
>
Cheeee.....
PV
ken...@shangrila.net
A Planet Visitor wrote:
> > One feature of American life, compared to Europe, is that
> > the work week
> > has been increasing over the decades.
>
> WHAT???? You're mad of course. But even if that
> were true, man's efforts should not be directed to
> ONLY finding leisure and lazy pursuits. That's obviously
> not the purpose we were placed on this planet for. I
> can assure you that citizens on MY planet, do not
> feel that way. Rather than finding work a drudge, they
> try to find work which instead consumes their interest.
One way of defining work could be as activity undertaken for the purpose(s) of others.
However much one may love his work, ultimately it is not the main purpose in life. The
idea that someone else can decide the purpose for which I was placed here offends me.
If I wish to sit and observe the lint accumulate in my belly button, that's my concern.
Of course, there are times when the job requires ridiculously sustained effort. I was
once involved in developing a simple method for shock testing small boats. What we had
to do was take a 36-foot open minesweeper out of Charleston harbor to where the water
depth was sufficient to allow depth charge detonation, a matter of almost a hundred
miles. We were then going to kick the charge off the fantail while moving rather
slowly ,while I measured the resulting motions when the thing detonated. This turned
out to be about a 22-hour trip, and the charge didn't fire the first time. So we had
to turn around and do it again, this time with the grease cleaned off the pistol. All
in all, a pretty rough couple of days. That was necessary. The idea that the everyday
reality for the average worker is anything like that is ludicrous.
Ken
A Planet Visitor
"Gaston" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:87cf7cf7.01120...@posting.google.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:<sCcQ7.16210$oj3.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> > As Jigsaw pointed out, with Earl
> > being a slumlord, Earl should have these figures right at
> > his fingertips.
>
> Now, there you see it folks! The level of PV`s research.
> I am now a slumlord, according to both Jigsaw and backed up
> by PV.
>
> What is interesting is the PV recognizes my having "these figures
> right on his fingertips".
>
> Not quite, but I have books within reach that have statistics
> which back up what I say.
>
> My opposition does what?
>
> Jigsaw clearly does no research.
>
Argggg.... what a pompous, arrogant statement. Most
of Jigsaw's comments represent opinion, and hardly
ever does he CLAIM research. In fact, a claim to
this effect got him in trouble before.
> Duncan Dunkhead can`t quote chapter and verse in the social area
> or even quote anything. He constantly makes statements without
> any citation backup.
>
It's always obvious when you realize you've come across
someone who does not accept your bullshit as gospel.
It starts with you insulting them. Roger has provided
quite a bit of researched material.
> PV "does" research, usually after the fact of my having pointed
> out something. He often even gets it wrong, he could find no mention
> of an association of Mead with the idea of a negative income tax
Perhaps because there IS NONE. Certainly it is YOU,
who has claimed there is, yet have yet to provide any
proof, other than your opinion that a 'credit' is the same
as a 'negative income tax.'
> (or one of its income subsidizing derivatives). He is not good with
> numbers and grabs and runs with things before thinking them out.
>
Ummmm.... need I mention? Tables 3 and 9. And
your claim that you have some superior knowledge and
experience in translating tables, yet managed to screw
that one up totally.
> And then he picks up jokes or rumors, like Jigsaw's made in jest
> statement about my being a slumlord and tries to promote it as fact.
> Worse, he can`t accept his student relationship with his teacher, me.
> Should I give him a honest "F" or a generous "D-".
Too bad that you're still living in past glories, Herr Professor.
You could no longer get a job teaching first graders arithmetic.
Tell us again about your theory that we should 'blackmail'
Islam by threatening to nuke Mecca, Herr Professor.
PV
>
>
> Earl
>
Earl
--
----------
Dans l'article <bFyQ7.22828$oj3.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
> An interesting fact from NASA "December 12, 2000 --
> After reaching a record-breaking size in mid-September,
> the ozone hole over Antarctica has made a surprisingly
> hasty retreat, disappearing completely by November
> 19, NASA scientists said. Seems like the recuperative
> powers of our planet are still largely misunderstood.
I don`t believe that what you discribed in "largely misunderstood".
You tend to deal in misinformation so I don`t know what you
are driving at.
The hole has been repeating this action for years, it grows in our Fall
and decreases back to nearer normal levels as the years proceeds. The 2000
and 2001 holes at their worse appear about the same.
The chorine atoms get used up and so the ozone comes back, the later is
continually being generated from oxygen atom, O2 reactions. Chlorine atoms
will react with other molecules, like methane, and produce HCL which is
largerly a terminating step, removing Cl from chain.
The new chemistry discovered a few years back was the reaction of HCL
with Cl0-NO2, generating photodecomposable CL2. But the essential
chemistry of the ozone hole generation via Cl attacking O3 is well worked
out.
Earl
Earl
----------
Dans l'article <ZXLQ7.28967$oj3.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
> You idiot... sue me!! And don't try and tell
> me YOU'RE not getting hysterical.
>
> PV
I did not write this, Gaston did and probably
Gaston only bites
Earl
A Planet Visitor
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message news:3C139883...@bellatlantic.net...
>
>
> A Planet Visitor wrote:
>
> > > One feature of American life, compared to Europe, is that
> > > the work week
> > > has been increasing over the decades.
> >
> > WHAT???? You're mad of course. But even if that
> > were true, man's efforts should not be directed to
> > ONLY finding leisure and lazy pursuits. That's obviously
> > not the purpose we were placed on this planet for. I
> > can assure you that citizens on MY planet, do not
> > feel that way. Rather than finding work a drudge, they
> > try to find work which instead consumes their interest.
>
> One way of defining work could be as activity undertaken for the purpose
> (s) of others.
> However much one may love his work, ultimately it is not the main
> purpose in life. The
> idea that someone else can decide the purpose for which I was
> placed here offends me.
> If I wish to sit and observe the lint accumulate in my belly button, that's
> my concern.
I did not post hoping to NOT offend you. It is self-evident
that my statement is true. YOU, in the microcosm of YOUR
existence may decide that YOU do not desire to participate
in the advance of our species. But that does not speak to
the SPECIES, only to your laziness. Obviously, if
EVERYONE felt as you do, we would NEVER have emerged
from the caves. The fact that we are NOT in caves,
demonstrates that 'work' IS man's main purpose in life.
I did not decide your PURPOSE... nature did that. I
simply pointed it out.
PV
<rest clipped>
> Ken
>
>
Earl
----------
Dans l'article <jPMQ7.29072$oj3.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>> PV "does" research, usually after the fact of my having pointed
>> out something. He often even gets it wrong, he could find no mention
>> of an association of Mead with the idea of a negative income tax
>
> Perhaps because there IS NONE.
Perhaps now! I just posted some more mentions of his positions.
An how about the University of Chicago Nobel Prize winner`s statement,
you dodged on that one too.
Earl
ken...@shangrila.net
Duncan Idaho wrote:
> France, and indeed most of Europe, greatly restricts an individual's
> economic freedom, such that there is little opportunity for most people to
> advance themselves. When you combine that with murderous taxes, there is in
> fact very little incentive in Europe for the average worker to do more than
> put in the mandatory hours, which in France is less than 40 hrs./week. In
> America, by contrast, many workers find themselves in dynamic young
> companies which provide great opportunities for economic and career
> advancement. This is well-documented in the stock options and other equity
> sharing programs that are ubiquitous in America, and almost entirely absent
> in Europe. Naturally, these American workers are motivated to work harder,
> and work longer hours.
Ever seen a dog race? For some reason I am reminded of that. Those greyhounds
really put their hearts into it, and I'm sure that makes their owners happy. If
the dogs knew just a bit more, I'm sure the faster ones would be happy not to be
turned into more dog food quite as quickly as the slower ones. I understand the
junior associates at law firms are much like that, chasing after a partnership
which more often than not illusory.
Ken
Duncan Idaho
purpose(s) of others.
> However much one may love his work, ultimately it is not the main purpose
in life. The
> idea that someone else can decide the purpose for which I was placed here
offends me.
> If I wish to sit and observe the lint accumulate in my belly button,
that's my concern.
That is precisely what America is all about. Choice. In France and other
parts of the EU, the government has placed so many constraints on the
economic decisions that individuals are free to make that most individuals
are left with very little choice at all. The only viable options are to be
an employee of a cartel, or of the Government. Entrepreneurship is
frustrated at every turn. Making one's career a major focus of one's
life--something that many Americans ardently wish to do--is not an option
for the EU's subjects. (I do not call them citizens--the EU does not permit
the people to elect its officials.)
Likewise, some will choose leisure over career advancement. Since America's
GDP is half again that of France, Americans on average have more freedom to
make this choice as well.
--
Roger J. Buffington
------------------------
"If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't
they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?"
--Ann Coulter
Duncan Idaho
"Earl" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9v05k0$3s5$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> The new chemistry discovered a few years back was the reaction of HCL
> with Cl0-NO2, generating photodecomposable CL2. But the essential
> chemistry of the ozone hole generation via Cl attacking O3 is well worked
> out.
>
> Earl
In your mind, anyway. Which is so closed that certainly no greenhouse gases
could ever escape it, so they all exit via your mouth in the form of hot air
and stinky chemicals.
--
Roger J. Buffington
---------
"Global-warming theory is built on uncertainty, and it's no closer to being
proven than the proposition that the sun rises because the rooster crows."
Jack Kemp, USA
ken...@shangrila.net
A Planet Visitor wrote:
> > > Here are the past figures, since Earl feels it has some
> > > relevance, which eludes me.
> > >
> > > Hours hourly earnings Weekly earnings
> > > 1969 37.7 3.04 114.61
> > > 1972 37.0 3.70 136.90
> > > 1975 36.1 4.53 163.53
> > > 1978 35.8 5.69 203.70
> > > 1981 35.2 7.25 255.20
> > > 1984 35.2 8.32 292.86
> > > 1987 34.8 8.98 312.50
> > > 1990 34.5 10.01 345.35
> > > 1993 34.5 10.83 373.64
> > > 1996 34.5 11.82 406.61
> >
> > These are NOT corrected for inflation.
> >
> I never said they were.
But, if they are not, then they are worthless. What you've done is fudge data.
Duncan Idaho
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
news:3C139F81...@bellatlantic.net...
> Ever seen a dog race? For some reason I am reminded of that. Those
greyhounds
> really put their hearts into it, and I'm sure that makes their owners
happy. If
> the dogs knew just a bit more, I'm sure the faster ones would be happy not
to be
> turned into more dog food quite as quickly as the slower ones. I
understand the
> junior associates at law firms are much like that, chasing after a
partnership
> which more often than not illusory.
>
> Ken
Hey, all of life is a dograce, if you want to put it that way. I notice
that you left my essential thesis undisturbed: that Americans work harder
because they have something worth working harder for. In my book that beats
the kind of polite economic servitude that passes for economic liberty in
the EU.
--
Roger J. Buffington
--------------
"All human beings are guilty of being imperfect. But those who are quick to
blame America or Western civilization are seldom willing to compare our
imperfections with those of others. Instead, they condemn America or the
West for failing to come up to their arbitrary standard, while showering
others who fall even further below those standards with "understanding" in
the psychobabble sense."
Prof. Thomas Sowell
ken...@shangrila.net
Duncan Idaho wrote:
> In France, by contrast, people's economic freedom is vastly constrained.
> You see a lot of side effects of this too, like chronic strikes and labor
> unrest. Paris is constantly overrun by labor troubles.
Yaas, indeed. Much more civilized to simply destroy unions or make strikes
illegal.
Ken
Duncan Idaho
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
news:3C13A099...@bellatlantic.net...
Oh, do you really think so? That's not what we do in America.
It is true, though, that France's unions are a joke. Christ, half the time
Paris is full of screaming frogs all upset about not getting some Government
subsidy or other. The other half too, now that I think of it. I guess
that's what you get when your economy is based on the notion that everyone
needs to crawl to the Government for a crust.
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9uvgbc$f7b$1...@quark.noos.net...
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <ECvQ7.21482$oj3.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>
> >> > Hours hourly earnings Weekly earnings
> >> > 1969 37.7 3.04 114.61
> >> > 1972 37.0 3.70 136.90
> >> > 1975 36.1 4.53 163.53
> >> > 1978 35.8 5.69 203.70
> >> > 1981 35.2 7.25 255.20
> >> > 1984 35.2 8.32 292.86
> >> > 1987 34.8 8.98 312.50
> >> > 1990 34.5 10.01 345.35
> >> > 1993 34.5 10.83 373.64
> >> > 1996 34.5 11.82 406.61
> >>
> >> These are NOT corrected for inflation.
> >>
> > I never said they were.
>
>
CRAPOLA. The figures are there. What is misleading
is to presume that because an imaginary 'not corrected
for inflation' (whatever THAT means) doesn't exist, that
the figures don't stand on their own merits. You're
ALWAYS looking for an excuse, when faced with FACTS.
> I was curious how you would dodge this misinformation.
>
Yeah, yeah.... when it doesn't meet your agenda,
call it misinformation. Do you KNOW how often you
use that EXCUSE?
> You may have missed this posting, note how I always try and
> specify inflation corrected figures.
>
You're becoming senile, sport. The figures I posted
which you quote above, were in response to the post
you are now presuming I missed.
> ********
>
<Anecdotal crap clipped yet again.>
> The table I took from Newman`s book was one I reported on before but now
> updates. This is łPerceived financial well-being˛, 1984-1994. Newman`s
> early book covered the period from 1970 on, but this table is updated to
> łnow˛, and also is web available (www.icpsr.edu/gss/trend/finalter.htm). I
> have not yet checked this address since Newman has it in her books.
>
Once again... in my PREVIOUS post responding to
this crap in the first place, that you claimed I missed.
This is a non-existent web page. If you're going to
cite sources, be sure that they even EXIST.
<more crap clipped>
> If this argument goes I will publish more and more bad news for the American
> cultural propagandists.
>
Since you perhaps didn't read my response to this
claim in your previous post --
'cultural propagandists' certainly sounds like an
expression you'd invent. Have you EVER read any
books except those with a Marxist flavor, or some
outdated scientific article? I will again summarize
how I perceive you, Earl.You must realize that you're
living in the PAST. Trying to bring back past
imagined glories, while at the same time recognizing that
you are largely being ignored, as no longer a significant
contributor to the scientific scene in your chosen
profession, if you ever were to begin with. It's almost
painful for me to see you undergo the transformation with
age, that I know you must be going through. With my
realizing that your knowledge is perhaps as deep as a well,
yet just as BROAD. It's all part of the pompous,
pretentious, patronizing, pathetic, ego-driven tenor of
the posts you provide here. And I can't help but believe
that your journey to Paris from American academia --
so many years ago -- had a rather underlying
escapist-driven motivation. I think you felt you could
no longer compete in the environment you found yourself
in, in the U.S. I believe, your associates found you to
be UNBEARABLE and (quite unlike Feynman), unaware
of ANYTHING outside of the training you had received --
yet trying desperately to be an 'intellectual.' Thus
your foray into Marxism, because it represented the
antithesis of U.S. Capitalism to you. A foray which turned
instead into a lifetime outlook rather than the quick
examination and repudiation which it actually deserves.
It never left you, yet it has been totally repudiated by every
thinking person. I believe you found in Paris, the path of
least resistance to your ego. A working environment
you could intimidate in your professional life, since the
scientific level was nowhere near as substantial as that
which you found in U.S. academia. And a gullible
'intellectual' audience, accustomed to the intellectual
naivety of Camus and Sartre, grouping for answers you
were only to happy to provide in your ego-driven pursuit
of 'elitism.' And you've FOREVER hated the fact that
you were professionally and intellectually driven from
U.S. academia. I think you've become obsessively envious
of associates you knew in the U.S., who achieved honors
far beyond any you will ever realize. A fact which you have
subconsciously extended into a hate for ALL things related
to the America you were professionally and intellectually
forced to flee. You found your neat little niche (which I have
to admit is a beautiful niche), and have been vegetating
ever since.
You need to be careful, Earl. Soon you'll be perceived
as the 'abolitionist's' Sharp. Simply repeating the same
old mantra over and over, without even a spark of
originality. As it stands now, most abolitionists compare
you to Chernobyl in terms of providing reasonable content
in respect to the DP, which might assist the cause of
abolition.
Try as I might, you still remain a backward student.
PV
> Earl
ken...@shangrila.net
Duncan Idaho wrote:
> As far as the Ozone Hole discussion goes, science indicates that there has
> been no increase in UV-B radiation on the Earth's surface. Cites: A.
> Robinson "Access
> to Energy" 1994 (showing that EPA studies seeking to correllate Ozone Hole
> with UV-B levels failed to do so); Maduro & Shaurhammer "The Holes in the
> Ozone Scare" 21st Century Science Assts.; S. Fred Singer "Shaky Science is
> Scarier than Ozone Scare" Insight March 28, 1994; Steven Penkett "UV Levels
> Down Not Up" Nature Vol 341 Sep.1989.
>
> I've only provided these and other cites a dozen or more times on this
> forum. And yet Earl continues to spread the lie that I have provided no
> cites at all. I suppose saying this relieves Earl from the burden of
> engaging his brain before running off at the mouth.
Your most recent reference in 1994....tres courant, mon ami! Still hanging onto
that hoary fraud, S. Fred? I don't suppose you've read anywhere that the folks
in southern Chile have taken to wearing broad-brimmed hats and sun screen?
Duncan Idaho
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
news:3C13A611...@bellatlantic.net...
Probably a good idea. Caucasians that emigrate to climates for which
light-skinned persons are not adapted would do well to do so. In Australia
there is unusually high rates of skin cancer--among European-Australians.
Those Australians indigenous to the region have seen no such increase.
Hmmmmm....
The past two centuries has seen widespread immigration of light-skinned
Europeans to hot climate locales. Including my own Southern California.
The past 70 years or so has seen greatly increased health care and the
attendant identification of diseases that earlier would likely have largely
gone diagnosed--like some forms of skin cancer. You don't need an Ozone
Hole theory to explain these observable facts. As Roger of Occam might have
pointed out, the simpler theory is the preferred one.
If you look at the EPA website that Gaston-hole was citing, it too has a lot
of 1994 era data. This is when the theory really got rolling, although
there was discussion about it for years earlier.
--
Roger J. Buffington
---------
"Global-warming theory is built on uncertainty, and it's no closer to being
proven than the proposition that the sun rises because the rooster crows."
Jack Kemp, USA
"Few skills are so well rewarded as the ability to convince
parasites that they are victims." --Thomas Sowell
Duncan Idaho
>
> You need to be careful, Earl. Soon you'll be perceived
> as the 'abolitionist's' Sharp. Simply repeating the same
> old mantra over and over, without even a spark of
> originality. As it stands now, most abolitionists compare
> you to Chernobyl in terms of providing reasonable content
> in respect to the DP, which might assist the cause of
> abolition.
> Try as I might, you still remain a backward student.
Except that Earl Gaston-hole is not a "student" because the word "student"
implies that the student is learning something. Earl does not learn.
Earl has frequently bashed the USA because it still has, in some states, a
death penalty (there is no functionally operative Federal death penalty
worth mentioning although the law is on the books.) Yet he has never
explained why this is a bad thing. Earl has also never explained why it is
a good thing that the EU forbids a death penalty despite the fact that a
majority of its subjects (they are not citizens) favor a limited death
penalty regime such as that which exists in the US.
Earl's real problem is that he does not know how to think clearly. And when
he tries, he always thinks wrong. For example, he thinks he is not a fool.
A Planet Visitor
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message news:3C13A099...@bellatlantic.net...
> Ken
>
>
Duncan Idaho
I am afraid so. Unfortunately, many people do not know how to think. The
above post by Kencorn implicitly assumes that a vigorous trade union regime
cannot exist without chronic strikes, labor unrest, etc., and that the only
alternative to these things is to destroy unions or the right to strike.
Nonsense, of course, although this is precisely the type of nonsense that
Leftists love to perpetuate and propagate. The reason that France's trade
union system is highly dysfunctional is actually very easy to understand.
In France the industries upon which the Unions depend are in turn heavily
regulated by, and dependent upon, Government bureaucrats. Government
bureacrats by their nature are highly sensitive to public unrest.
Accordingly, when the Unions don't get what they want in France, they don't
just strike, they cause widespread disruption. Because they need to
pressure not merely their employers (who after all lack power--it is the
Government that has the power in France, although the big French companies
and the Government are really one and the same, unlike in America) but also
the Government itself. Which means you have to disrupt Paris. Which is
what happens constantly in France, day after day. Political dysfunction is
central to the French economic system.
--
----------
Roger J. Buffington
"Politicans everywhere are the same"
"They seek to build bridges, even where there are no rivers."
Nikita Khruschev
--
A free market economy can operate without the public's understanding how it
operates. But it will not be permitted to operate if demagogues play on that
ignorance to gain the power to impose massive political controls, as some
are always trying to do.
--Thomas Sowell
ken...@shangrila.net
Duncan Idaho wrote:
> <ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
> news:3C139F81...@bellatlantic.net...
>
> > Ever seen a dog race? For some reason I am reminded of that. Those
> greyhounds
> > really put their hearts into it, and I'm sure that makes their owners
> happy. If
> > the dogs knew just a bit more, I'm sure the faster ones would be happy not
> to be
> > turned into more dog food quite as quickly as the slower ones. I
> understand the
> > junior associates at law firms are much like that, chasing after a
> partnership
> > which more often than not illusory.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Hey, all of life is a dograce, if you want to put it that way. I notice
> that you left my essential thesis undisturbed: that Americans work harder
> because they have something worth working harder for. In my book that beats
> the kind of polite economic servitude that passes for economic liberty in
> the EU.
>
You're right, I did. I was working on it and my wife called me for lunch or
something. I suspect that lots of the harder working Americans are responding
to the perception that if they don't work long hours they won't have a job.
Period. Insecurity is a great motivator. Putting in long hours, though, isn't
quite the same as working productively. I've always figured that there's a
limited amount of the day I work for other people and the rest of the time I
work or play for me, and I've always
managed to get my work done.