Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[Spectre]

But just talking about the idea, saying that communism requires everyone to be selfless doesn't sound to me like something that's especially terrible.

The E32 looks like a good idea on paper, too.

But, like requiring everyone to be 100% selfless, it doesn't work out that way in reality.

Edit: By the way, how is that E32 working out? You never have said, other than "DON'T BUY E32."

 

[wooflepoof]

The E32 looks like a good idea on paper, too.

But, like requiring everyone to be 100% selfless, it doesn't work out that way in reality.

Edit: By the way, how is that E32 working out? You never have said, other than "DON'T BUY E32."

once again, just referring to the idea

I was going part it out but I figured screw it and I'm just gunna hock it to a scrapper fer a few hundred. Help some other soul with time and money to fix his E32/34 proper

 

[jetsetter]

US rejects UN call to abolish death penalty
By FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Frank Jordans, Associated Press ? Tue Nov 9, 11:36 am ET

GENEVA ? The United States dismissed international calls Tuesday to abolish the death penalty as friends and foes alike delivered their recommendations on how Washington can improve its human rights record.

U.S. State Department legal adviser Harold Koh said capital punishment was permitted under international law, brushing aside long-standing appeals by European countries and others to temporarily halt or completely abolish the death penalty, which critics say is inhumane and unfairly applied.

"While we respect those who make these recommendations, we note that they reflect continuing policy differences, not a genuine difference about what international law requires," Koh told the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council.

The call to abolish the death penalty was repeated throughout the list of 228 recommendations by other nations that formed part of the first comprehensive review of Washington's human rights record before the council.

Other nations also urged the U.S. to reduce overcrowding in prisons, ratify international treaties on the rights of women and children, and take further steps to prevent racial profiling.

Koh said the U.S. was committed to rooting out injustices and would seriously consider some of the recommendations, including one to sign a U.N. declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

But in response to recommendations made by adversaries such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, Koh said some proposals were "plainly intended as political provocations, and cannot be taken seriously." He didn't elaborate.

Civil society groups have praised the United States for involving them in the review process, which all U.N. member states have to undergo every four years.

"This international engagement must be followed by concrete domestic policies and actions and a commitment to fixing all domestic human rights abuses, not just the ones that are most convenient," the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's human rights program, Jamil Dakwar, said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101109/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_us_human_rights

After reading the article above I came across this piece of recent news:

U.N. Rejects Iran's Bid for Seat on Women's Rights Panel
Published November 10, 2010

The United Nations on Wednesday rejected Iran's bid for a seat to the board of the new U.N. agency to promote equality for women after fierce opposition from the United States and human rights groups to Tehran's treatment of women.

But the U.N. accepted the bid of Saudi Arabia, which is also opposed by human rights groups.

Iran, which has been criticized for its record on women's rights, received only 19 votes -- short of the necessary 28 votes for approval.

In recent months, Iran sparked an international outcry by sentencing to death by stoning a woman convicted of adultery.

In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive and are barred from many facilities used by men.

The new agency was formed after a General Assembly resolution adopted in July merged four U.N. bodies dealing with women's issues into one with greater clout to represent half the world's population. The resolution calls for a 41-member executive board, with 35 members chosen by regional groups and six representing donor nations.

The Asian group put forward an uncontested 10-nation slate that included Iran and Saudi Arabia,selected for one of two slots for emerging donor nations. The other nations selected by the Asian group for the board are Bangladesh, India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, Kazakhstan and Pakistan.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/10/iran-saudi-arabia-win-seats-womens-board/

:lol:

Does anyone actually take the UN seriously anymore?

 

[Spectre]

once again, just referring to the idea

I was going part it out but I figured screw it and I'm just gunna hock it to a scrapper fer a few hundred. Help some other soul with time and money to fix his E32/34 proper

Well, again - like Communism, the E32 looks good on paper. The problem is that neither is compatible with objective reality.

 

[nomix]

Nothing wrong with being anti-communists as on a whole communists are quite terrible. He did over do it however. Soviet infiltration into the United States was quite high but there were better ways of dealing with it.

That depends on a lot. It depends on what communism you're talking about, and it depends on how you do it. Not only was McCarthy's way of doing things completely undemocratic, heck, it was a danger to democracy, it was a monumentally stupid way of hunting Soviet spies. And as I'm sure you agree, the way it was ALL run makes any potential evidence from said investigations completely worthless by any standard. It was a witch-hunt, it was un-American (so was the hunt for French infiltrators back when Adams ran the shop, but that's a different story), and it must never happen again.

There's nothing wrong with being anti-neo-con, as on a whole, neo-cons are quite terrible. However, there's nothing wrong with being a neo-con, even if neo-cons are terrible. Nothing wrong with being a commie either. I'm not. I'm not a neo-con either. I think it's both silly positions to make. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Spectacular photograph but the controversy is amusing. The European aversion to hunting is something I have been hard-pressed to understand. In the United States the funding hunters provide sustain wildlife conservation efforts to a large degree.

The photograph is a nice enough documentary portrait, but I'm not really that impressed. That said, I've not seen it as a 2x2 meter professional print, but on screen, it looks very standard. It's a good pose, and the light works, the highpoint of the portrait is the connection you get with the girl, it's good but not spectacular. I'll give him one thing, and that's the fact that I don't notice technique, which is, contrary to what a lot of people think, the essense of a good portrait.

As for hunting, you should come to Norway in hunting season, we have enough hunters to.. err.. we have a lot of hunters. It's not frowned upon in Norway, it's a proud part of tradition, and it'll stay that way for ages. I can't think of any European country where hunting is REALLY frowned upon. Britain banned fox hunting because it was a terrible way of killing a fox (at least from the perspective of the fox), but that's not really about hunting.

The answer to any problem will almost never be more state intervention and interference.

No answer in the form of a sentence fits all problems. If history has shown us anything, it is that what workes best is a healthy dose of government and a healthy dose of market.

Sure, it allows for it. But who is going to want to try to excel in the sciences or medicine when you have the same life as the local garbage collector? And why would you want to put in all that effort and all that trouble to have nothing to show and no fruits of your labor to enjoy?

Because, in most communist countries to date, your quality of life would improve a lot if you proved you were worth it. I'm not defending communism, but even Stalin realised that some people had to get rewards for stellar work. And they did, as early as in the late 20s. Good scientists had a good standard of living, the same can be said for good doctors, within the armed forces, good people advanced to good positions, and why do you think the KGB was so efficiant?

The guy who developed much of the Soviet space program was a GULag survivor who showed the powers to be that he was worth a better life, and he got it.

:lol:

Does anyone actually take the UN seriously anymore?

Yeah, much of the world takes it seriously. For one thing, Tony Blair would never have gotten the beating he got if the UN had backed the invation of Iraq. However, the larger nations of the world, along with the authocratic, don't give a rats. The UN was a powerful instrument of the Cold War, just a pity the peace keepers weren't given a wider mandate in 1956.

Just as with general international cooperation, the US would gain from thinking seriously about working closer with the UN. It will never do so, but that's frankly the US' problem.

 

[Crazyjeeper]

Because, in most communist countries to date, your quality of life would improve a lot if you proved you were worth it. I'm not defending communism, but even Stalin realised that some people had to get rewards for stellar work. And they did, as early as in the late 20s. Good scientists had a good standard of living, the same can be said for good doctors, within the armed forces, good people advanced to good positions, and why do you think the KGB was so efficiant?

The guy who developed much of the Soviet space program was a GULag survivor who showed the powers to be that he was worth a better life, and he got it.

Yes, the countries who desired communism, and claimed to be communists realized that people have to be rewarded for their hard work for them to work hard in the first place.

That isn't pure theoretical communism though, which is what was being discussed. That is simply a left wing dictatorship.

 

[Spectre]

Because, in most communist countries to date, your quality of life would improve a lot if you proved you were worth it. I'm not defending communism, but even Stalin realised that some people had to get rewards for stellar work. And they did, as early as in the late 20s. Good scientists had a good standard of living, the same can be said for good doctors, within the armed forces, good people advanced to good positions, and why do you think the KGB was so efficiant?

At which point it's not true Marxist communism any more. Under pure communism, ALL must be treated the same, no exceptions. No special rewards, all must be given the same treatment.

Also, pure communisms and communists are fun to watch when they encounter a time sensitive crisis. As there can be no leaders ('the state will wither away') and all decisions must be made by consensus, usually they fail miserably.

 

[Cold Fussion]

I can't be arsed to create a thread right now on the subject, but a few of my friends were among the 50,000 that descended upon Central London today, and they were protesting the equivalent of $15k in annual tuition. One year at my alma mater, Syracuse University, is more than double that. A for-profit private school like Syracuse charges up to $50k for a year's worth of tuition, with mandatory on-campus housing, and the Brits, with their heavily subsidized university costs and tuition caps, are protesting that? Am I honestly missing something here? Please, feel free to correct me, because as an American who knows people saddled with average student debts of up to $33,000, I'm gobsmacked.

American school fees are far to high.

 

[Plissken]

Especially for what you receive. BlaRo, they are protesting that the limits are being removed. Those $50,000 fees will become a reality here in the UK, and the intention of the Tories is to pull the ladder up from the poor so that only the rich can afford to send their kids to university. Fees have risen 300% in 8 years and the teaching budget has just been cut by 12%.

After all, the current Prime Minister used to refer to his current Chancellor an "oik" because he went to a school where the fees were "only" $32,000 a year.

 

[wooflepoof]

At which point it's not true Marxist communism any more. Under pure communism, ALL must be treated the same, no exceptions. No special rewards, all must be given the same treatment.

Also, pure communisms and communists are fun to watch when they encounter a time sensitive crisis. As there can be no leaders ('the state will wither away') and all decisions must be made by consensus, usually they fail miserably.

Pretty sure no pure system works well...

 

[teeb]

Especially for what you receive. BlaRo, they are protesting that the limits are being removed. Those $50,000 fees will become a reality here in the UK, and the intention of the Tories is to pull the ladder up from the poor so that only the rich can afford to send their kids to university. Fees have risen 300% in 8 years and the teaching budget has just been cut by 12%.

After all, the current Prime Minister used to refer to his current Chancellor an "oik" because he went to a school where the fees were "only" $32,000 a year.

Just to add : at the moment, tuition fees are relatively low (maximum about ?3000 a year). And the maximum annual student loan (designed to cover fees, living, rent etc) is about ?7,000. So a student can get by on the loan (which starts being repaid as soon as he/she earns ?15,000 a year or more, when 9% of pretax salary is taken). This means that pretty much everyone who is academically able to meet requirements can go to university, have their fees paid, afford accomodation and maybe just leave the flat and go to the pub once a month.

However, ?9,000 a year fees are being mentioned. There is no current discussion about raising the ?7,000 a year loan maximum. Which means suddenly the criteria for university acceptance is no longer academic ability but ability to pay. Which is not fair on the students - who may well have done nothing wrong and be perfectly smart.



Some of the ideas being mentioned by the Government aren't entirely silly. Having degrees last two years instead of three or four has merit (it just means less holidays and more work in order to cover the same amount of work). Promoting vocational training for those who want it instead of university is fine (you don't need a PhD in plumbing to be a plumber, after all). However, cutting university funding by 40% and assuming that current students will be able to pay to make up the shortfall is just silly.

Strengthening the bonds that hold the state and many universities together would only lead to more trouble, not less. And why should we be protesting at all over these increases? The increases were completely foreseeable and indeed expected. Our universities in the United States are spectacular, the envy of the world. I have read articles from many European commentators professing the belief that indeed European institutions should be looking to their counterparts across the Atlantic for inspiration when it comes to the subject of funding.

A lot of UK universities have looked to the US for funding inspiration. Oxford and Cambridge now make many millions by holding American-style "donation drives" and calling up alumni and asking for money. Other universities are catching on and trying this for themselves. It's not going to fill in the huge funding shortfall, though.

And having courses or departments funded by private business is asking for trouble. Part of the advantage of universities being state-funded is that they can research whichever areas they wish, and not have it dictated to them by sponsors. Look at some of the cases where pharmaceutical companies have funded university departments, and then the suspiciously positive nature of the outcomes, for example.

 

[BlaRo]

A lot of UK universities have looked to the US for funding inspiration. Oxford and Cambridge now make many millions by holding "donation drives" and calling up alumni and asking for money. Other universities are catching on and trying this for themselves. It's not going to fill in the huge funding shortfall, though.

In my junior year of college, Syracuse University launched their "Scholarship In Action" initiative, which consisted of pretty banners, expensive dinner receptions, and the goal to raise $1 billion in funding within a year. And yet, hardly any students actually can figure out what it means.

Granted, the chancellor, basketball coach Jim Boeheim and other athletics officials make over $600,000 a year, but that's a simplistic argument that's more nuanced than it originally is.

 

[teeb]

In my junior year of college, Syracuse University launched their "Scholarship In Action" initiative, which consisted of pretty banners, expensive dinner receptions, and the goal to raise $1 billion in funding within a year. And yet, hardly any students actually can figure out what it means.

In comparison, my university - Glasgow - has just raised 6 million over 4 years for their biggest appeal yet - for a cancer research facility. And the annual telephone appeal raised just over ?60,000. Which isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

The US is much more into this "giving back to your university" than the UK is; even in Oxbridge.

 

[jetsetter]

It also must be recognized that the United States has thousands of universities scattered across the nation. Most are not hugely expensive. Usually the universities within one's own state are actually quite cheap. While BlaRo may be saddled with a $33,000 debt I am projecting, once I finish my Civil Engineering degree, to be saddled with little or no debt. That is being accomplished by working and attending my local California State University here in Sacramento. For a resident of California the fees are actually quite reasonable.

If tuition increases at the more prestigious schools people will just attend their cheaper local schools.

 

[BlaRo]

It also must be recognized that the United States has thousands of universities scattered across the nation. Most are not hugely expensive. Usually the universities within one's own state are actually quite cheap. While BlaRo may be saddled with a $33,000 debt I am projecting, once I finish my Civil Engineering degree, to be saddled with little or no debt. That is being accomplished by working and attending my local California State University here in Sacramento. For a resident of California the fees are actually quite reasonable.

Hey, if you want to brag about how little debt you have, then two can play this game: due to a tuition exchange program at my university my father teaches at, I was able to attend Syracuse for less than 1/6th the regular tuition, even without a scholarship, that my parents have all paid off - housing, fees, and everything. Not a single student loan on my hands.

Since we both don't have a problem, then nobody does! After all, isn't that the conservative way of thinking? Also, California state schools charge far, far more for out-of-state students across the board, but like Mexicans, they should be kicking those bastards out anyway.

Oh, and attending a state school, with lower state-subsizied tuition for residents...isn't that, uh, socialism?

If tuition increases at the more prestigious schools people will just attend their cheaper local schools.

Exactly. Why bother applying to MIT, Caltech, or other hotbeds of liberal fearmongering when Quinsigamond Community College has a thoroughly cromulent Basic Engineering program?

 

[AiR]

I can't be arsed to create a thread right now on the subject, but a few of my friends were among the 50,000 that descended upon Central London today, and they were protesting the equivalent of $15k in annual tuition.

That's about fiftheen thousand dollars too much.

 

[jetsetter]

Why? University education is not cheap and it is not the obligation of the state to prove it.l

 

[vikiradTG2007]

Why? University education is not cheap and it is not the obligation of the state to prove it.l

It isn't the obligation of the state, but in many places it is the choice of the state. Not for everyone, mind you, at least around here there's a limited number of state-supported places at University, the ones that fall on the outside of those have to pay for their higher education. And (at least in theory) you have to be competent in order to have free University education, the sorting is done via academical results. Also, not everyone is rich enough to afford to pay those taxes, and quite a lot of talent and competence can rise from precisely that demographic.


(For the record, I'm currently on one of those state-supported places)

 

[Cobol74]

Depends upon society - society might think that it is better to provide free education rather than charge everyone the economic cost of it's provision.

You could say the same about defence, Government is under no obligation to provide an army, airforce or navy - give me the money that costs and I'll defend myself thanks.

See it is what the society within which you live decides, what the priorities are. Personally as a beneficiary of a free University Education (Just!) I do feel a bit guilty about charging the kids squillions of GBP.

I though this government might have a think about what should be done by government and what should not instead they have really failed by doing the same old thing - vested interests protected. Oh sad old Cobol74.

 

[AiR]

Why? University education is not cheap and it is not the obligation of the state to prove it.l

Yes it is, education is no different than law enforcement, health care or fire fighting in my book. Talent should dictate how far you go in your education, not your wallet.