| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Porthos |
Hey Fredrik, as a side note, do you tend to favor your own Germanic women, or do you like other beauties, like the women of the British Isles and southern Europe? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I know that that wasn't directed at me, but... 
What exactly do you mean by Fredrik's 'own Germanic women'? LOL! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
It was written in words that only Fredrik would understand. I didn't address it to you because I knew you would over analyze it like an annoying intellectual. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
His harem of german, dutch, scottish, english, norwegian, swedish, icelandic, danish, american, australian, new zealnd and especially frisian ladies. 
LOL !!!!!!! you and benjamin are very funny 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Then why were women from the British Isles listed separately? Lol. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I don't know ! Here, the british people are considered germanic ones. I forgot some: flemish, south african, canadian. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Yeah, Pauline, I think Fredrik is bound to marry a Frisian lass. lol
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
P.S. they are considered germanic, sub-type anglo-saxon.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Probably. For sure he loves frisians and Friesland
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Well, in the sense that I using, and probably only Fredrik understands, most British would not be considered "Germanic", with the exception of maybe the English. Canadians, Australasians, and Americans are a melting pot of a variety of peoples, and their core ethnic group are from the British Isles, thus excluding them from the Germanic group again. I was using "Germanic" in an old fashioned racial sense, that only Fredrik would pick up on. It was sort of meant as a subtle joke as well. But all your questions killed it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
And evidently, you're not aware of the fact that Fredrik is one of northern Europe's premiere pimps. He has over 400 women in his employ and his top underlings are five of Friesland's finest. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Sorry for killing your joke, Josh.
Well to be honest, if Germans, Dutch people, Scandinavians etc. are included in this old fashioned racial sense, I see no reason why most English people wouldn't be. And contrary to popular belief, most Scottish people ought to be included as well. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
probably it was a stupid joke then and we didn't klled your joke because it wasn't funny. it's veyr arrogant thing to write that only fredrik would pick up on, so you and fredrik are only sufficiently intelligent for have this subtle joke? If you don;t want that some other people will reply you then you must put don't reply this, it's for fredrik only then we will not kill your joke.and anyway we didn't |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
i think it's not anymore funny and fredrik is very nice so don't make some jokes about him. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Relax Pauline. I was being sarcastic. It was only partly meant as a joke, and it wasn't the joke part which you killed. Ease up a little.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Now, kids, behave! 
To return to Porthos' question, I have to say I don't mingle much with southern beauties, so I have a rather shallow image of them. But I have to say that I'm sometimes shocked by the sheer distastefulness of some of the Latin exchange students here. Some of them have so bad skin and just ooze hostile I-hate-this-country-ness. BTW a lot of Norwegians would probably group "German women" under "weird, exotic chicks", at least if you judge from the Mädels who visit our shores. Lots of dark Odin-worshipping goths among them.... One of, if not the most Nordic-looking girl I encountered in Germany turned out to be a noble von Zeppelin. Seemed to confirm the theory of an Aryan master race... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
If you would go go Germany would would probably be surprised to see that most people don't fit in your racial sense. And if you would go to the British isles you will notice that people can hardly be put in a different category than Germans just based on the appearance. inversely for what I noticed there is a bigger difference with Scandinavian, even if even is this case you find a lots of pure scandinavians who could neve fit in the category either.
Mmm, 60million british - 50 million English = 10 millions. So the 10 million non-english British are "most British..." ?!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
And then add most Scottish people to that as well. The so-called 'Celtic' nature of Scotland is vastly overstated, in my opinion, largely because it encourages tourism. The reality is that most of them are not of a particularly different ethnic origin to most English people. It is a myth to think that the ancestors of most Scottish people were speaking Gaelic until a few hundred years ago. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
So, you dig the weird Goth chicks, Fred?  That's cool. I went through that phase myself (and all photographic evidence has thankfully been destroyed....)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I never liked the whole "Goth" thing myself. Sometimes "punk" girls can be hot though. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Icke |
These goths are indeed „exotic“, in Germany as well. I only see them on so-called „Medieval Faires“. But looking dark, i.e. wearing dark clothes, having black fingernails, and dyed black hair, is part of their culture. Are there no goths in Norway, or Scandinavia in general?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Icke |
Yes, there may be no great difference between these two peoples, but still I don't think the 'Celtic' nature of Scotland as being overstated, but rather the 'Celtic' nature of England as being understated! Don't you think so? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
What's so "overstated" about Celticness? Why does everyone here want to just dismiss it all the time? It's about a historical identity, a cultural legacy and ethnic identity.
Sure, most Scots and Irishmen speak only English, but they do so with a thick and heavy Gaelic accent. Just because they speak English today, you can't change the fact that these people are Celts. You have no appreciation for cultural heritage. If suddenly one day, the Russians started speaking German instead, would they no longer be considered "Slavs"? They would no doubt speak German with a very pronounced Slavic accent, they would be ethnic Slavs, and their history would be a Slavic one! You can't just erase that and strip them of their identity! "Ivan Vladamir Radmonovich. You are no longer a Slav. Forget your people's history, your ancestry, your name, and the fact that you speak German with a ridiculously strong Slavic accent. Forget your people's literary heritage, the traditional garb and musical heritage of your land, and all of that. You speak German, so there's nothing Slavic about you. You're just a German now." That makes no sense! Icke, expound on your statement about the English a little further if you please. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Josh, I think your thinking is quite tipically American; it consists to confuse the cultural identity with the concept of ancestry/lineage - having ancestry that had a specific culture doesn't mean that yourself also have it - but it won't prevent you to wish to identify to this certain people, even if you haven't the culture. Having a specific cultural identity is a very different thing to recognise in a etnic groupe or to relate yourself with an ancestry. Inversely I can have a specific cultural identity and don't want to identify with it for various reasons, and search to identify with my ancestry instead of my actual culture. When we say that most Scottish and Irish people are hardly celt doesn't mean that we refuse the idea that their lineage (or at least some of) ancestors were having a celtic culture (which was especially a concept of linguistic grouping) - It mean that the people of TODAY, who live there have basically a English culture : they speak the same language, have the same literature, listen the same music, eat similar food, have similar social codes and juridic systems, etc. What is different is the "fokloric revival", like the so-called "celtic music" or bagpipes, which in fact are not even specifically celtic in the original sense. The identification to an specific supposed "celtic" ethnicity/race is really misleading since the common point of the former celtic peoples was the languages relation and not the "race". Actually in the different European regions that claim to be "celtic", it is hard to see any physical unity - for exemple between Galicians and Scottish people... or even between Welsh and Scottish that's not necessary a same "people". Actually some Galicians claim to be celts, as well as some scotish or welsh people, that doesn't change the fact that Galicians have a similar culture to the rest of Spain and Scottish have a similar culture to the English much more than toghether. What those regions share is something like an image/ambiance, that can seem alike. Thos I would call "Atlantic ambiance", which would means more than speaking of Celtic culture. Let's reserve the Celtic thing to the few real people that still speak Celtic languages as their mother languages. I went in Scotland a few years ago - I noticed a different accent but not a real different culture - excepted the kilt+bagpipe shows for tourists. Fundamentally Scotland and England have similar cultures, called "British", and this culture is based on England's one since centuries. For historic reason scottish don't want to be associated with English while they are similar and there is not at all any cultural gasp between the two "countries" (there are in my opinion just two regions of the same country, even if I take the risk to unfuriate scotish nationalists) To me the differnces between Scotland and England are more in terms of Geography than of culture or ethnicity. Scotland is wilder, more natural, with more Atlantic ambiance, with more rude climate than England. And that was that ambiance which is often unrightly called "celtic" and to which many people want to identify because the image of England is often seen as less "exiting" because seen as more flat and industrial (although that may be not alway the case). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I asbolutly agree with fab.
It's the american way to say for exemple that he is italian or german, norwegian etc.. but this mean that the grand-father or the preceding generation of him immigrated from this old country . The person who tell, that he is italian etc can speak only english, not the other language at all and maybe didn't never visited the country. It's like the origin country of the family, but I think that in Europe we havn't this way to view your nationality / culture. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Maybe... but to be honest, I'm not quite sure what a 'Celtic nature' would be.
I know what the problem is: your image of Scotland is overly Highlands-centric. That's not your fault, because that's the image presented by the media, since it works well in films and books, and it encourages tourism. However, up until fairly recently (100-200 years ago), there were basically two main 'peoples' in Scotland — the Gaelic-speaking people in the Highlands and Western Isles, who were the minority, and the Scots/English-speaking people in the Lowlands, who were the majority. Up until about 200 years ago, these two groups had very little in common, and differences still exist today. (There were also other groups, such as the Northern Isles, but I won't go into that just now). In the Lowlands, intermixing between various ethnic groups was similar to in England — Anglo-Saxon and Norse migrants with the 'native' people, whom we might know today as Celts or maybe Picts. The result was that they mostly ended up speaking a Germanic language, Scots, which is very similar to English; this language has been increasingly influenced by Standard English over the past 200 years or so. Fundamentally, it is totally inaccurate to suggest that everyone in Scotland was speaking Gaelic until recently. And I'm not convinced that Scottish English is really spoken with a 'Gaelic' accent either. You may be surprised to know that 'Celticness' does not form part of even the Scottish National Party's campaign. Instead, they try to promote Scotland as a 'North Sea' country and are interested in developing greater links with countries like Norway.
Yes!! I do not see what is so hugely similar about Scotland and Wales compared to England. Admittedly, there are many similarities between Scotland and Wales which they don't share with England: both are more mountainous than England, both are smaller than England, both are poorer than England and are economic peripheries within the British Isles, and both have strong Calvinist/Presbyterian religious traditions whilst England does not. But you're right — all this has nothing to do with 'Celticness'.
But even then, it still wouldn't mean very much, because even though Scottish-Gaelic and Welsh are Celtic languages, they are not mutually intelligible at all. Actually, the mutual intelligibility between Scottish-Gaelic and Welsh is much much less than the mutual intelligibility between English and German, or probably even English and French. Essentially, there are two linguistic groups here — the one that includes Scottish-Gaelic, Irish-Gaelic and Manx-Gaelic, and the one that includes Welsh, Cornish and Breton.
Do be careful, because it's not just Scottish nationalists who would be annoyed but your statement there. In virtually all British publications, Scotland is referred to as a 'country', not simply as a 'region'. I agree that Scotland (and also Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) is fundamentally very similar to England, and that it all forms part of a kind of 'British Isles' culture (I use that term because I don't find that Ireland is particularly different from of Britain as a whole, even though it's an independent country). However, there are a number of differences between England and Scotland which might not always be externally apparent. For example, Scotland has its own national church, the Church of Scotland, which is Calvinist/Presbyterian, and is thus different from the Church of England, which is Anglican/Episcopalian. Scotland also has its own legal system (which bizarrely, I think is actually more similar to the French system than to the English system), its own education system, its own parliament, its own money (or at least its own banknotes), and it's own 'National' this and that (orchestras, institutions etc.). Politically, Scotland is more left-wing than England; in the last Scottish Parliament elections, about 13% of people voted for one of the explicitly far-left parties — something which would never happen in England. But ultimately, I agree — the differences between England and Scotland are not really because of 'Celticness' or the lack thereof. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Benjamin, I agree with you here.
It seems it consists with being playing bagpipe with a kilt under a continuous windy rain.... More seriously, I'm asking this also.
That is strange, why they do want to be independant, and why they would think they are so different from England to worth a split-off ? Speaking of "north sea country", I don't think that Scotland needs to be independant to be a north sea country. Actually all the UK is already de facto a north sea country. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Almost all the arguments for independence proposed by the Scottish National Party are economic. They believe that Scotland would be economically better off if it were independent, because they believe that UK government's entire economic policy is intended primarily for Southeast England. They also see Scotland as a country with a lot of social problems by Northwest European standards (this is true), and they feel that these could be better solved if it were independent. Then there are other factors — for example, the Scottish National Party opposed the War in Iraq, and they wish to have what they call a 'more positive' attitude towards European integration (they also support the adoption of the euro in Scotland). Oh, and they hate Margaret Thatcher — a prime minister whom Scotland absolutely did not vote for, but still left lasting effects. And let's not forget North Sea Oil either. Economics is actually a very major issue in the Scottish independence movement — recent opinion polls suggest that most Scottish people would support independence, but only if taxes would not increase and if public spending would not decrease. Ironically, there is actually more support for Scottish independence in England than in Scotland. You know, let's get rid of the annoying... LOL!
I will say that I strongly support Scottish independence. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
The economic tsars of Scotland have not done their homework. I read the FT (Financial Times) on a regular basis and I came across an article which outlined the pros and cons of going it alone and how the current ratio of assets to liabilities for Scotland would actually be below 1.0 if Holyrood remains adamant that independence is the only option.
It is marvellous that young idealistic people are swept up by this romantic notion of self-determination - people of an ethnic tribe being governed by themselves. Throw off the foreign yoke and we'd live happily ever after. Cast off the shakles of Whitehall and establish our own presence in the United Nations and other world bodies. Scotland have a lot to benefit from remaining in the Union. She has a lot to lose by being petulant, childish and irrationally nationalistic. For one, foreign investors would be spooked by any mutterings of independence. Didn't the Quebec example give the Scottish nationalists some food for thought? Up till the 1970s, Montreal was the leading financial centre of Canada. It has since been replaced by more placid Toronto. It is hence strange that the very strength of Scottish independence rests upon this proposition that independence would make Scotland better off. It does not take a clairvoyant to tell you otherwise. If Scotland were still largely a Gaelic-speaking country, there would be strong cultural reasons for more autonomy, nay independence. But she is basically an English-speaking country whose speakers share many linguistic as well as cultural affinities with their neighbours down south. Bermuda still insist on being British; Gibraltarians say 'over my dead body' to quitting Britain; the more rabid elements of Scottish independence are contriving to bite the very mouth that feeds them. Maybe ingratitude is a uniquely Scottish word that enjoys currency among their sympathisers. After all, Macbeth did assassinate Duncan in his sleep, didn't he? And we all know the nationality of this famous protagonist. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I thought I'd explained that it has almost nothing to do with that. In Scotland, black and Asian people actually tend to identify as 'Scottish'. This contrasts with England, where black and Asian people tend to identify as 'British', often believing that 'English' refers only to white people.
This only refers to the immediate and very near-future effects of independence. It does not consider what the long-term benefits may be. Ireland was a very poor country when it became independent, but now it's become richer than Britain. Same for Norway.
No-one in the world owes Scotland a living. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Hey, we gotta hang onto those roots somehow!
It's also sort of a given that we understand that we are not really Italian, German, Norwegian, etc -- the -American is unspoken but always understood to be there. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Icke |
No, Fab. I was talking about an ethnic identity, not their culture! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
What does it mean to be ethnically Celtic - without speaking of culture at all ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
No, quite the contrary! But black metal people are often very nice, though! Regarding the two nations in Scotland: If you read Walter Scott's historical novels you will see how totally different Highland and Lowland culture was. Regarding Scottish economy and independence: Perhaps independence would expand the Scottish economy by leading to more innovation and exploitation of ressources, if the intravenous subsidies from England are cut off? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
This is a concept that I think you will never be able to truly understand. Ethnic identity and a person's ancestry is something that is very, very important to a lot of people. The people of the "Celtic Fringe" of the British Isles are conscious of a seperate ethnic identity, and the culture and language of their ancestors which was at odds with the English one. The English stole their land and imposed their language on them, and for that, there is still resentment, because people cherish their people's history. There is pride in one's land and people. The "ethnically Celtic" aspect refers to the ancestry/ethnicity of the native people of the British Isles, who prior to the Anglo-Saxon domination, spoke Celtic languages. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Maybe, but you still seem determined to include the whole of Scotland in this concept. Realistically, the anti-English sentiment in Scotland today is more about modern politics (feeling ignored/alienated by London, feeling subordinate to England etc.) than about any romanticised notions of 'Celtic' nationhood dreamed up by 'revivalists' in the 19th century. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I thought that the Celtic people lived in all europe, then they went to the west because there were people who attacked them from the east direction, also the name Belgium is from Belgae, this were celtic people. So, in Belgium lived celtic people as well, but I didn't heard that now there are celts or that people have pride about the celtic history. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Yes, I have difficulty to understand that people that have the same culture, similar look, and have even most of their ancestors in common think they are soooo different. To me it is more something like a pure nationalist/political question. Some people in those areas didn't liked at all the English (for political reasons) - due what the English's ancestors did to their (or to some of them) ancestors - And so don't want to be associated with: while most of them are very similar on most points.
I don't have doubt about this. What I just say is that it doesn't relate to any cultural or "racial" unity. The racial myth are just spread in the minds to maintain a "nationalist/regionalist" feeling.
Yes, this is what I think, it has nothing to see with having a cultural identity or beeing part of a "race" (since the celtic people were themselves a mix of a lot of deifferent people and had very different kinds of looks) - But purely a question of natioanlism and politics. Also I can understand that some people can have ressentments towards English people due to historic facts, and so they tend to dislike them (especially because it is something that is transmitted by generations since centuries). it doesn't change that in the reality the English and the so-called "celtic nations" of UK are today about the same people and have about the same culture -
Yes, and prior to Celtic domination those peoples who lived in British islands were not speaking celtic languages - Celtic languages were impose upon those people (and to almost all western Europe by some central European tribes... As in the rest of western Europe the British isles became dominated by the Celts and adopted their languages - And so became themselves celts... That's how history and people is made - eternally moving.[/quote]
True, almost all Europeans are linked with celtic ancestry at one point or another. Not especially the British isles, which were among the farther lands from the core/origin of the first Celtic peoples (so with a quite big probability that not a so much big anciant celtic population reached). The main reason why celtic languages have last a longer time in the "extreme western extremities" of Europe is that these lands were quite poor for agriculture and difficult to reach - so they didn't pushed as much the avidity of conquest of other people as the properous agricultural English plains did. There is actually a quite good chance that Austrians would have a much bigger "ancestral" link with the anciant celts... Not to forget Italians, Spaniards, French, Belgians, Germans, etc... all were lands having being heavily celtized. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
It is true that there is an anti-English sentiment amongst a minority of Scottish people. But as Fab mentioned, this anti-English sentiment doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they see themselves as 'Celtic'.
However, it is important to realise that the mainstream members of the three main pro-independence political parties in Scotland do not hate England or English people, and are centre-left to left-wing (sometimes even far-left). I'm talking about the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
It makes no difference that ethnic minorities in Scotland subordinate their British identity to their Scottish one. I was given to understand that most non francophone Quebeckers also have a tendency to identify first and foremost with being a Quebecois before being a Canadian. That doesn't stop them from voting for the status quo in the two referendums.
Besides, I believe that the Scots are less keen on severing 300 years of history than the polls would have you to believe. A YouGov poll for Channel 4 surveyed a sample of Scots and asked them about their views towards independence. Only 40% support independence while 44% oppose it. When the independence-minded respondents were questioned on their enthusiasm for independence, only 31% (this makes only 12.4% of the total sample) were enthusiastic whereas 51% preferred further devolution which stopped short of fully-fledged independence. It is my opinion that the rational-minded citizen would not rock the boat that has served him well. The risks for going it alone are too high; the returns are in turn decidedly meagre. Who can guarantee that Scotland would be able to aspire to the lofty heights of Norway once she has been given free rein to do what she wants and what she pleases? The Norwegein boom and the Irish miracle happened under special circumstances that might not necessarily be replicated in future. I see this proposed split as untidy and unnecessary. From where I come from, we'd call this cutting off your nose to spite your face. Not a very wise thing to do isn't it? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The poll which you're quoting is not the most recent one, but basically the public support for independence vs. continued union is roughly 50:50 (whilst support for Scottish independence is actually rather higher in England, ironically). However, this is all rather irrelevant, because they're not currently in the middle of a pre-referendum campaign, and won't be for at least a year. I will say though that I would definitely support further devolution to the Scottish Parliament. Actually, I would consider a separation of Holyrood and Westminster (so that Holyrood would no longer be subordinate to Westminster), resulting in a kind of quasi-independent Scotland without full independence, to be a satisfying result. This would hopefully give Scotland independent membership in the European Union. Ultimately, my support of Scottish independence is the natural result of my support for the political parties (and their other ideologies) which support it. This may be coincidental, but the three main political parties in Scotland which are consistently anti-nuclear, anti-war, pro-environment and pro-equality are also the pro-independence parties — I hate how Scotland is currently used as a dumping ground for dangerous nuclear weapons and (unnecessary, in my opinion) nuclear power stations. So admittedly, the voters who care more about the moral/ethical issues than traditional arguments about economics and culture may be inclined to vote for a pro-independence party, even if they don't see independence as a particular priority. Regardless of whether or not I perceive Scottish independence as an immediate necessity (which I don't, in all honesty), I will definitely vote for a pro-independence party when I'm there. I could not possibly compromise my other beliefs simply for the purpose of supporting the continuation of a 'union' which I'm not too enthusiastic about anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin, you are not being very sensible. But it is not my place to tell you what is and what isn't a rational course of action. It is however my place to tell you that I profoundly disagree with your point of view.
1) Anti-nuclear policy Foolish and nothing more than a kneejerk reaction to anything that is new and is seen as out of tune with nature. Nuclear energy is actually very safe and the only viable option left if Man is serious about reducing her slavish-like dependence on fossil fuels. 2) Anti-war policy William Wallace should presumably be torn down from his lofty pedestral in Scotland then. Quite a bellicose figure, wasn't he? An independent Scotland must not have an army, a navy and an air-force then. 3) Pro-Equality Policy Nothing more than a left-wing utopia. It is inequity which spurs Man on to greater heights. But then again, what do you exactly mean by pro-equality? Every mainstream party is now committed to various forms of equality which frown on discrimination based on sex, religion, sexual orientation and a host of other secondary characteristics. What is your definition of 'pro-equality'? This is a very vague and at the same time, politically loaded word. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
If you mean "economic equality" then that just sounds scary and screams Politburo!!! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Nuclear power produces highly radioactive toxic waste, creates potential terrorist targets and costs a huge amount of money to produce. It is also totally unnecessary in Scotland, as Scotland has enough potential renewable energy to provide for all their electricity needs six times over. And even though only about 20% of total energy consumption in Scotland is for electricity, there is still no need for nuclear power stations. Instead, onshore and offshore wind farms, hydro power, wave power, and power generated by tidal streams are all viable alternatives — Scotland is the windiest place in Europe afterall, and there is no shortage of surrounding water. This is obviously biased, but an explanation of the renewable alternatives for Scotland can be found here: http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/id/5127
I did not elaborate on that sufficiently, but essentially, the Scottish National Party support a nuclear-free defence force for Scotland, believe that international law should always be upheld, and are opposed to membership in NATO. The Scottish Green Party seem to support even less than that — they would be extremely unlikely to support any kind of invasion, even with UN backing.
My view would be to significantly increase taxes on large businesses and wealthy individuals in order to increase public spending, thereby creating a much larger welfare state. This would greatly improve public services in Scotland, and would enable wealth to be distributed more equally, as the gap between the rich and the poor remains a significant problem there. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Not trying to stir a hornet's nest here, but do you think the poor are sometimes poor because they deserve to be poor? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I think that it's acceptable and usual to have some people richer and some poorer, but the important thing is how poor? There must exist a minimum level. Nobody mustn't live without sufficient food, somewhere safe and a bit comfortable to live, medical care, school education etc.. Unfortunately, at the moment, there is a too higher percentage of the world who live too poor. No, this people do *not* deserve such poverty. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I see you take a darwinian approach to political economy Loic. I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to assume that you come from a relatively privaleged background, don't you? I can't say I agree with the above statement, as there are all sorts of factors at play which dictate a person's eventual status in life. If the the same sorts of advantages lavished on wealthier children are not provided as the foundation for a child's life in the case of poorer ones, then they will obviously have a tougher time advancing their economic station in life as opposed to the wealthier child, despite equal if not greater effort. But Benjamin, can you not learn from historical examples and clearly see the grave fallacy in attempts to redistribute the wealth of a society based on a utopian dream of absolute economic equality? The goal might be an honorable one, but unfortunately it only works in theoretical discussions on paper and in university drawing rooms, but not in practice. Not in the real world. The true result of social democracy is either a drift toward state capitalism "authoritarian socialism", or economic stagnation, high unemployment, and lower standards of living for people of all income levels. If you tax the hell out of the most productive people in society (the ones who create jobs, provide capital for investment, and are the engine of economic growth and technological gains in productivity), then everyone suffers. Where will the money be for hiring workers? What ends up happening is a large portion of the population becomes dependent on government handouts, and they forever remain poor, rather than achieving upward mobility through they dynamic private market. They are a drain on the rest of productive society, as these people provide the taxes used to finance their government benefits. What the government can do is encourage growth and give poorer ones the power to enrich themselves by investing more in educational opportunities, and the like, which equip these people with the means they need for economic advancement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Absolutely not. Imagine being born into a deprived area on the edge of Glasgow. You'll live in a run-down concrete apartment block with no sense of community. You will only have central heating if you are very lucky; if you're unlucky, you won't even have your own toilet. You almost certainly won't have access to a car, and since public transport may not always be adequate, you probably won't leave this area very often. You will be living amongst high levels of crime, violence, alcoholism and drug abuse. You probably have an unstable family background, which may be plagued by unemployment and depression. You won't get much educational support at home, and you will probably go to a failing school, rife with violence and poor attendance rates, which you will probably leave at 16 with no qualifications. If you're a girl, there's about a 30% chance you'll be a teenage mother, possibly higher. You'll grow up speaking only a heavy Glaswegian dialect, and since you won't be able to speak Standard English due to your poor education, you won't be taken very seriously at many interviews for higher jobs due to dialect prejudice. Your life expectancy will be about 50 years. What sort of prospects does someone from that sort of background really have? Yes, there are exceptions where people from poor backgrounds have become rich, but in all honesty, they are very rare. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I see what you mean, but I'm actually looking more towards the Nordic modals, rather than communism. Countries such as Denmark, with its very high taxes, have managed to achieve both much greater economic equality than Scotland, and higher standards of living than Scotland.
Absolutely. A fantastic argument, in my opinion, for a move away from dependency on subsidies from England, and a move towards independence for Scotland. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I do not come from a relatively privileged background; like Benjamin, I am middle class with working class antecedents only a few generations ago. It is precisely because of my background that I am entitled to make hard-hitting comments about the poor because I am not removed from the everyday realities of life which blight the existence of the working class.
Of course, I draw a distinction between the destitute (people who have been systematically denied opportunities in life) and the working class poor who chose to squander the opportunities which have been handed to them on a silver platter. They are coarse and uncultivated; they deride their intellectually superior peers as nancy little swots; they think playing football is more important than doing their homework and paying attention in class; they are incapable of stringing words together into a sentence without inserting profanities; they grow up to be blue-collar workers, hugely resentful of the white collar professionals who have worked hard in school; they do not blame their economic situation on their lack of effort back in school but on the lack of effort on the part of the government to mitigate their economic circumstances. Do you get the picture? Do you then agree that they deserve to be poor? We must not romanticise the poor as a downtrodden class which is innocent and largely unspoiled by all the vices that have ravaged the bourgeoisie and the upper-middle classes. Just like the Thenardiers in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, there are also the evil poor who would do an Artful Dodger on you the moment you turn your back. I am fed up with the sense of entitlement which many working class people have. In a meritocratic society where men of talent are able to rise up the ladder, being poor actually imbues a person with an advantage as he is able to see from both sides of the pond. I greatly admire men and women who by sheer force of determination drag themselves out of the poverty trap. They are to be applauded and rewarded. Similarly, I can argue that the rich deserve to be rich unless their wealth was earned through ill-gotten gains. Nobody can begrudge the wealth of the Rothchilds: even if their descendents enjoy an immense advantage over their peers, we must remember that the first Rothschild was probably a poor but farsighted man with entrepreneurial flair. He -as well as his descendents- deserve to be rewarded. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Whose fault is it? Probably the mother's who had the child out of wedlock, left school before the age of 16, ended up with a loser of a man who abandoned her the moment she was pregnant. It is not the child's fault, but a generous portion of the blame can be lain on the mother's doorstep for failing to give her child a normal life.
A poor excuse. One of my forebears was born in an inaccessible and economically depressed village in China. He put it into his head to walk all the way from China to Singapore. In those benighted days where communication links were non-existent, that was a very long trek. It's a matter of a hunger to succeed and by making excuses for them, you are actually insulting their intelligence.
And whose fault is it again if she chose to have pre-marital sex?
Sir Alex Fergueson also speaks with a rather heavy Glaswegian accent. This is apparently no barrier to success for the mercurial manager of Manchester United.
Let me give you two famous examples. The richest Chinese in the world is Li Kah Shing. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was so poor that he had to sneak across the border to Hong Kong from China and started out selling plastic flowers on the streets. The richest mainland Chinese is also another case. In fact, every Chinese millionaire you see today are born poor because the middle and upper classes were wiped out during the cultural upheavals of that time. Back to the story, he started out by selling secondhand clothings along the Russian-Chinese border before diversifying into other merchandise. I cannot remember his name for the moment, but his is a rags-to-riches story as well. Furthermore, Scotland or the United Kingdom is no China where a social safety net is largely unheard of. That Glaswegein lad who was born poor would have many chances to improve his circumstance if only he were sensible enough to take them. As an outsider who has never been to the UK, even I have heard of the Prince's Trust - an organisation set up by the Prince of Wales to help disadvantaged youths. Do you think there is such an equivalent in my part of the world? Seriously, I do get pretty fed up at times when people from first world countries moan about petty things such as the spiralling cost of living, the threat of real wage stagnation, the deficiencies in the education system, etc. It seems as if we expect the world to revolve around us and not the other way round. As Benjamin wrote in a riposte to my view about Scottish independence, nobody owes Scotland a living. Nobody owes that Glaswegein lad a living as well. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Are you saying that the descendants of the first wealthy Rothschild deserve to be rich just because their ancestor had entrepreneurial flair? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Not trying to stir a hornet's nest here, but do you think the poor are sometimes poor because they deserve to be poor?
Very few people are poor because they are just too lazy to work, or just too stupid to see an opportunity and seize it. In fact, most poor people work like hell, scrimp and save every dime, and do the best they can to make a better life for themselves and their children. Often that improvement is generational, though -- it doesn't happen in their lifetime. That was the case with my father's family -- it took three generations to hit the middle class, and that was not because they weren't trying. Often poverty is a cycle -- various factors beyond people's control keep them from getting ahead. If you live on minimum wage you will never get anywhere. If you weren't that good in school you won't go to college. If you have dark skin or a vagina, you stand a good chance of being discriminated against in the workplace -- often in ways too subtle to litigate, but there just the same. They say most Americans are just two paychecks away from being homeless -- that's how little it would take to get them so hopelessly behind on their bills that they would quickly face eviction or foreclosure. And that's in the world's richest country. Imagine being poor in Africa or parts of Asia -- that's a whole different class of poverty I can't even imagine! So no -- unless you had money once but then blew it all on hookers and cocaine, I can't imagine most poor people actually deserving their fate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I still disagree. We are not talking about destitution here as I have mentioned. Destitution occurs when one does not even have access to the basic amenities in life.
I am talking about the poor who are only relatively disadvantaged in the first world countries where they are staying. They are relatively wealthy if you wish to compare their plight to the millions of starving Africans and Asians. The destitute do not have a morsel of opportunity; the so-called poor in rich countries have access to them. Therein lies the difference - and what a crucial one it is. I cannot accept that a Glaswegein lad who was born in a poorer part of town would be condemned to lifelong poverty based on the circumstances of his birth. Of course, I'd agree that he deserves a helping hand but help should not come at the expense of the more capable. Of course, my Catholic sense of social justice means that my heart will always go out to the destitute living in the slums of Calcutta and the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. It is they who are truly poor and to call anybody from America or Britain poor is an insult to those who are truly and really poor. Deborah: If I succeed in life, I would naturally want my descendents to reap the fruits of my labour for eternity. I imagine that the first Rothschild shared similar views. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I am meandering so before I become guilty of highjacking the original purpose of this discussion, I have a question to ask to all interested parties:
1. If you support the independence of Scotland, do you necessarily extend this principle to other nations with an independence-minded outlook? Say, Quebec v Canada or Kosovo v Serbia or Taiwan v China. Is your position the same for them? 2. If you are against the independence of Scotland, do you automatically dismiss all claims of self-determination from other parts of the world? Let's be consistent here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
But were you yourself actually born into a poor family? Whether my parents were poor or not when they were children is irrelevant, because I was blatantly born into a privilege background. I have never known any kind of poverty, so as far as I'm concerned, I have no right to make such comments about poor people. It is true that my father's family did not have a lot of money when he was growing up, but he ultimately lived in a very pleasant environment — in the house opposite where we live now, actually. And ultimately, I would argue that my father became middle-class not through his own effort and hard work, but by passing IQ tests. When he was 10, he passed an IQ test which would enable him to go to very good (and rather elitist) non-fee-paying school. When he was 17, he passed an IQ test which gave him a place at Cambridge University. His A-Level results were actually not very good, and he did very little work at Cambridge and didn't end up getting a particularly good degree — but as it's from Cambridge, it will always be perceived as 'good' anyway.
I cannot accept that someone my age from a deprived area of Glasgow has had anywhere near the same educational opportunities as me.
They are brought up with a different set of values. To a large extent, they don't value education because their parents don't. And if you go to a failing school where virtually everyone is from a similar background to you, you won't get good results, unless you are very exceptional. As Uriel has said, it's a kind of cycle. As for me, I've never been poor, and probably never will be (although I'll never be hugely rich either because I lack the necessary motivation and because I'm largely uninterested in money). Both my parents and two of my grandparents went to university; my father and my mother's father both went to Cambridge. My parents are both professionals with typical 'middle-class' public sector jobs. I'm an only child, so almost all their attention is focused on me. I speak Standard English natively, whilst most people in this country don't — makes it much easier for me to write 'well'. The list of advantages I have in life over someone from a deprived housing estate in Glasgow is endless. What you're saying sounds very similar to the sorts of things I used to say about four years ago when I rebelled against my parents by adopting overtly right-wing and conservative attitudes towards practically everything, and became a kind of extreme snob. I have abandoned those views now though, thank goodness.
In most cases, no.
It almost seems as though you don't perceive people as individuals. So basically, if your parents are rich, but you did nothing, you still deserve to be rewarded? And if through no fault of your own you have poor parents, you still deserve to be punished? I'm afraid that I cannot understand that mindset at all.
I'm not quite sure what having children 'out of wedlock' has to do with anything, but at least you admit that this is not the child's fault. And ultimately, the mother probably left school before she was 16 because she was encouraged by her parents to do so.
No-one has ever suggested to me that one ought to wait until one is married before having sex. My parents certainly didn't wait until they were married, and to be honest, I'd be surprised if their parents actually waited either (despite the received wisdom of how things supposedly were in the 1950s). Besides, you can marry at 16 in Scotland, even without your parents' permission. It is important to find the cause of teenage pregnancies, but I don't think that it's necessarily about 'promiscuity', let alone 'pre-marital sex' (almost no-one here cares about that anymore, unless you're a strict Muslim or something). It can often be quite deliberate. If a teenage girl from a poor or unstable background feels a significant lack of self-worth, getting herself pregnant may give her a sense of purpose. It can also be seen as a ticket into the adult world.
He speaks with a strong Glaswegian accent, but he is ultimately able to speak in a way that is Standard English enough such that it is understandable to people from outside Glasgow. One doesn't generally hear the genuine regional dialects on television, because people from outside those areas would not really be able to understand them.
It has to come at the expense of the richer people. Giving such people a helping hand costs money, and that money doesn't come from nowhere.
You seem to define 'poverty' as simply a lack of material possessions. It's about so much more than that — feelings of humiliation and worthlessness, and a perceived lack of prospects. One could also argue that the people living in the favelas in Rio de Janeiro have a community where they live, whilst many people living in estates of Soviet-style apartment blocks in Glasgow do not. Of course, if you're literally starving in Scotland then it's because you've chosen to be in one way or another. But even then, life expectancy in parts of Glasgow are embarrassingly low for what is supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world — around 50 or even below in some areas. What makes this even more of a scandal is that this depravation should not have to exist in Scotland, as there is enough money overall for wealth to be distributed more equally. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I would support independence for those regions if a majority of people in those regions voted for it in a referendum. Although I notionally support Scottish independence (i.e. the idea appeals to me), I would not attempt to demand independence for Scotland if a referendum resulted in a 'NO' vote. That's basically what the Scottish National Party are about. They argue what they believe would be the benefits of independence. Based on a combination of this and all their other campaigns, they attempt to become the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, and then form a coalition government. (Ideally, they would like to win an overall majority, but this would be unrealistic). If they manage this, they will attempt to hold an independence referendum, for which they will campaign for a 'YES' vote. They are essentially civic nationalists — they do not generally believe that Scotland has some kind of God-given right to independence which it is currently denied; rather they see it as a choice that the people could opt for by voting in a referendum. The Scottish Green Party support independence as well, but they tend to believe that it should be a more gradual process. Also, their support for Scottish independence is based on the belief that political decisions should be made on a more local scale, and that there is no 'green' advantage to having large countries. The Scottish Socialist Party are more expressly republican, but I don't know much about them, other than that they had a campaign called 'Make Capitalism History', and that they all fell out with each-other last year. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I am still not convinced by your argument about relative poverty but your steadfasted defence as well as the eloquence of your riposte has gained my respect.
To my untrained ears, Sir Alex is already quite unintelligible at times. He seems to be mumbling most of the time. In general, northern English as well as Scottish accents sound similar to me. Alan Shearer's style of speaking is not so dissimilar from Fergueson's. I agree with you on one respect: if the overwhelming majority of Scotchmen and women want to go it alone, nobody should stand in their way. One of the fundamental tenets of a democracy after all is majority decision making. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Thank you!
Even Margaret Thatcher admitted that, as have all recent British prime ministers. That's why Gordon Brown is so stressed about the whole issue at the moment, because he knows that he won't be able to do anything about it if they vote for it. And since he's Scottish, it would ruin his career. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
A very good description and I wholeheartedly agree that this kind of people should be poor! Unfortunately, they aren't in modern Norway, where the market is desperate for blue-collar workers.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Yes, of course, people want to leave their wealth to their children (although some don't). But you seem to think that a wealthy descendant merits being rich, simply by his good luck in being born into that family. At least, what you wrote seems to say that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
My mother once owned a house and two lots at Lake Tahoe, all of which would be very valuable now. She chose to sell everything so she could move to Madrid, in hopes of starting a small hotel with a friend of hers. That never worked out, and she continued to live in Spain, spending her money. Friends of mine have told me how terrible it is that my mother didn't think of my brother and me when she sold her assets, but I've never seen it that way. I don't think parents are obliged to leave their descendants anything, and I've never felt cheated. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Totally agree with that. Indeed, I think it's great that my grandparents are spending a lot of their money on holidays, apparently without much regard for what their children and grandchildren will inherit, because they're doing what they want to do. I obviously believe that parents should support their children until they are adults, but after that, my life is separate from the lives of my parents. If I decide to emigrate to New Zealand next year and never see my parents again, then that would ultimately be my decision, and there wouldn't be anything my parents could do about it. And vice versa. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I have nothing to say except that Chinese people think very differently. We are more pro-family. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Do you mean that you feel your parents are obliged to leave you an inheritance? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
No, I do not have a sense of entitlement. However, I would not pack up my bags at the spur of the moment and immigrate to a distant corner of the world without seeking parental approval.
It is very hard for outsiders to understand our mentality. This is a culture which prizes ancestral veneration as a means of displaying filial piety. We sweep the graves of our ancestors on All Saints Day, thus honouring their memory even after death. The cornerstone of a Chinese identity revolves around the family and the clan. Of course, family ties are beginning to weaken in our generation. My grandfather once spoke of the formidable authority which his mother had over her children. He recounted a story of how his older brother (my great-uncle) was whacked in front of everyone else for some petty misdemeanour when he was already in his 20s. To my great-uncle's credit, he did not retaliate. This underlines the powerful sway which parents have -and should have- over their offspring. Simply put, children should not expect anything from their parents; They should however do everything in their power to ensure that their lineage continues to exist and to prosper for the success of their descendants would only reflect well on them. It is thus helpful to leave a sum of money for their children in order to give them a leg up in life. PS: I am the oldest son so of course, I'd have an inheritance. It is my birthright after all. PPS: The above PS is just a tongue-in-cheek statement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
You know, I am very intrigued by the concept of reincarnation and if it were true, then birth into a good family in this life is justified because he has done enough good deeds in his previous life to warrant his present exhalted status. Of course, this is just a theory which I am intrigued in. I do not subscribe to it, but it has certainly once given me pause for thought. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I think family should help each other whenever one is in need. My mother has no retirement savings, and despite having multiple medical conditions, and terrible chronic pain as the result of being hit by a car as a pedestrian, she will be working well into her 70s. If anything, I will be the one helping to support her in her old age, and I doubt she will ever be able to leave me with a sizeable inheritance. And I'm okay with that, because I know how hard she worked in raising me. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Sounds like a perfect argument for increased taxation of rich people and large businesses. That way, people like your mother would receive larger state pensions during their retirement, and the government would be able to pay for her (and your) healthcare. And a much larger proportion of your university tuition fees and living expenses whilst you're at university, as seemed to be an issue on the other thread. And better public transport, as has also become an issue on the other thread... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Yeah, but isn't this one of the central tenets of capitalism? That individuals work hard for themselves, and produce in a competive, self-enriching society that rewards hard work and initiative, rather then everyone depending on the state for free hand outs, which kills productivity? In a free market economy, I have the power to make something out of myself, when I start with nothing. Sure it's not easy, but that's what compels people to strive to work hard and contribute to society, rather than draining other more productive sectors of society. And in the end, we all benefit, at least those who are willing to take advantage of the rewarding opportunities available to anyone willing to put forth sufficient effort. Our economy prospers, we have low unemployment rates, relatively high economic growth, and low inflation. Not to mention the fact that people are masters of their own destiny, rather than having the government intrude unneccessarily in their financial affairs and hard earned money. Excessive taxes for the purpose of income redistribution merely punishes productive economic activity, and rewards laziness. If people don't have anyone to depend on, they will do whatever it takes to survive and to thrive. Such is human nature. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
The state = us
Thus you can say we decide our own destiny even if we are on welfare!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The American Dream, yes? The belief that anyone can become rich through hard work and capitalism, regardless of their beginnings, right?
The United States also has one of the largest gaps between the rich and the poor in the developed world. That's the downside of the so-called 'free market' — it tends to benefit large corporations over ordinary people. It is intended to generate overall 'economic growth' — something which I do not believe is inherently good or valuable. As far as I'm concerned, I personally should not be (and am not) expected to fund my parents on an individual basis during their retirement, because I see that as the responsibility of the state. I'm not planning on ever being able to afford to fund them anyway, even if they needed me to. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
I'd consider myself a leftist. (I find myself avoiding the word "liberal" these days because I keep thinking of its European connotations.) I think capitalism should exist, but in a moderated form. I think we definitely should have national health insurance; and while we're on old people, my view is that our Social Security system is a Depression-era dinosaur. We should replace it with simple minimum income payments out of general revenues. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
The ones who make it to the top are not always the most deserving ones, but often the leanest and meanest ones. That the state should abandon people because they are meek and honest folks only guilty of doing an exhausting low-status job their whole life goes against all my political principles. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Although I am a believe in the American dream, and I am an economic conservative by most European standards, I do support a national health insurance program of some kind. Health care has gotten out of control, and the fact that 40 million Americans don't have complete access to healthcare represents a pathetic failure in our society. I would still attempt to involve the private sector in achieving this goal however, as I would not want to leave it out entirely. There's something you should know about me. I'm either going to be an investment banker or a stock broker, so capitalism is in my blood .
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Why would it need to involve the private sector? It doesn't involve the private sector here — the state runs and pays for it all (although you can choose to pay for private healthcare if you wish).
Don't you think it would be a bit monotonous? I'm kind of the opposite — basically everyone in my immediate family works or worked either for the public sector or for charities. Unless you count my mother's father, who used to manage the bookshops of the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, which arguably didn't have making money as its primary aim anyway (and could actually be seen as public sector, since it's connected to the Church of England, which is the official state-endorsed church here). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I'm a moderate liberal by American standards, and all for the American dream, but I think I would favor something more than what we have now, in terms of a social safety net, but less than the total welfare that Europe offers -- I'm American enough that a statement like this
makes my skin crawl -- like loic and Porthos, I think that sense of entitlement and lack of personal stake in one's own well-being leads to a smothering apathy. I still think you should really work for what you have rather than have it all handed to you whether you put into the system or not. Yet I would also agree that we need some sort of basic universal health care -- insurance companies are nothing but pirates, driving the cost of medicine way past what is natural. The cost of health care in the US is no longer in line with the ideals of the free market and what the consumer can bear; it is now the playground of what multibillionaire companies can bear -- and you better hope one of them has your back, because there's no way ordinary humans can foot those bills! And nobody wants to see the elderly having to work well into their old age, or scrimp and scrounge on the pittance that Social Security doles out -- I think the flip side of working for what you have is that we should also force your employers to have the resposibility to take care of you the way you've worked for them -- with viable pension plans (not lousy 401(k)'s, which were never designed to replace real retirement plans!), mandatory health coverage, and no more "working the system" by exploiting loopholes like part-time hours to dodge these responsibilities to their employees. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Uriel — when you describe yourself as a 'moderate liberal', do you mean that you are a moderate social liberal, a moderate free-market liberal, or moderately left-wing (as I know that 'liberal' sometimes has that connotation in the US)? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
She probably means moderate left-wing, as "liberal" usually means "left-wing" in the U.S. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
A 58-year-old friend of mine who is still paying for his teenage son's health insurance has been working 2 part-time jobs, neither of which pays anything toward his own health insurance. His insurance premium suddenly increased by another $150/month this month, and he decided to stop paying it. That's a pretty drastic thing to do at his age, but he says he just can't afford it anymore and he'd have to go into debt to keep paying it. He can still get sliding-scale care at a county hospital and some clinics, but God forbid he should be hospitalized -- he could be in debt for the rest of his life. I work in the wordprocessing department of a large law firm, and we've always had overnight coverage. Some months ago, the woman who worked overnight (the "graveyard" shift) had to take a leave of absence to get an operation on one of her hands, because she was having so much pain when she typed. Once she started back to work, she found that she still couldn't do a lot of typing, and her doctor has limited her to 3 hours' worth per day. Most nights she wouldn't have to actually type more than that, but occasionally it happens. Our firm laid her off yesterday because she can't type more than 3 hours, and the Social Security Dept. recently reached the decision that her inability to type more than 3 hours doesn't qualify her for long-term disability. So she's out of a job, her disability payments have stopped, and, unless she can get a new full-time job, she'll be paying her own health insurance. She's in her 40s and has a number of health problems, so her situation doesn't look good. Yeah, our health care system definitely needs some work. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
In the American sense -- sort of left-wing. (Which is always what liberal means in the US, not sometimes .) Which would also coincide with social liberalism, I think, if you and I are defining it the same way. I can get somewhat conservative in some definitions of the word -- I believe in strict word-for-word readings of the Constitution, and I certainly believe in the old conservative chestnut that "the government governs best that governs least", but I am also not a strict free-market laissez-faire libertarian -- there have to be some oversight and restrictions for the common good; it can't just be all about the benjamins (no pun intended -- means $$$). I am "moderate" I suppose, because I don't mind gun ownership or the death penalty, which are typically "conservative" views in the US, but liberal in the sense that I am pro-environment, don't have hang-ups about sexual orientation or behavior, don't mind abortion, and demand a certain amount of service back from my gov't if they demand a certain amount of my paycheck. These are the common litmus tests for conservative and liberal in the American sense -- social issues.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Hallucinant ! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
That roughly sums up my political views as well.
Except that I'm against gun ownership, and have mixed feelings over the death penalty (opposed to it in principle, but in our current situation I'm not so sure). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
We always do seem to have been mysteriously separated at birth, Andre!
I suppose I owe my particular views on gun ownership to the fact that I come from a military family, my maternal grandfather was a gunsmith and a competitive shooter, my father was a hunter, and I've shot a few targets myself -- and damn it's fun! Plus I distinguish between the urban gun culture (little gangbangers and their toys) and the rural gun culture (more geared to hunters and basic protection), and acknowledge the reality that guns are here to stay in the US -- might as well take a practical approach, not an idealistic one. All good things in moderation, of course, though -- that's the ticket. My dad was an NRA (National Rifle Association) member for a long time because he was simply interested in guns and hunting -- he even built his own black powder rifle from a kit -- but he gave up his membership when they got too rabid and political and right-wing for his tastes (he is a mild-mannered liberal like me.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
