Jobs cut in Europe

Why do I keep getting the feeling that there seems to be more
people afflicted by this phenomenon (per capita) in the US than in
any other Western nation......:) ???
Yes -- that's what frightens me. :-(
First, let's keep it in perspective. One reason American invincible ignorants are so visible is because they speak English. The French ones, for example, are rarely noticed on the English-speaking Net simply because they haven't bothered learning English.

Second, it is true that there are certain traditions in American culture which make invincible ignorance more socially acceptable than in many other cultures. For example, anti-intellectualism. (It's quite striking to Europeans that many Americans considered the fact that, say, Al Gore or John Kerry were clearly and obviously intelligent as points against them rather than in their favor.)

There's a strong negative connotation associated with being a "brainiac." I believe this is connected to the American variant of Christian Fundamentalism: one of its epistemological tenets is that the truth, by nature, is easily accessible to everyone through "common sense," and therefore anything that conflicts with "common sense" must be false. Bob uses this type of argument quite often.

Conversely, if you look at American heroes, you'll find that they quite often embody this anti-intellectualism: the rags-to-riches self-made millionaire, the gutter-to-the-top athlete, the Sergeant York type simple-guy-from-the-farm-to-war-hero. American popular imagination ranks the athlete higher than the scientist, the fiery lay preacher higher than the theologian, the courageous fighter higher than the cool-thinking strategist. Even the best-loved American novelist is loved not so much for his books but because he was a red-blooded shït-kicking Amurrican who just happened to write some damn good books. (Papa Hemingway, of course.)

And, of course, there is the fact of growing illiteracy and the large number of people who are poorly educated, and must feel inferior about it. It's quite a natural human response to compensate by telling yourself (and others) that education isn't everything it's cracked up to be, and subsequently looking down on those limp-wristed unpatriotic geeks who like smelly cheeses, use words like "nuanced," and may even speak a furrin language. And, of course, politics and the market being what they are, it pays to cater to this mindset.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=1

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16031

Believe what you want. There are all sorts of people,
institutions, news organizations, universities, political parties
etc. with an ax to grind. You can ALWAYS find statistics to
support your particular bias - in your case a post modern,
anti-American bias. It proves nothing.
That's where critical thinking and reading comes in. You're right -- you can find citations to support just about any proposition. You're pretty good at finding them yourself. It's up to you to decide whom to trust and on what grounds.

It's nice to see you backpedal a bit, though -- at least now you admit of the possibility that there are in fact Americans who take the issue seriously, even if you still disagree with them.

(BTW, I'm not post-modern, quite the contrary. IMO post-modernism is just solipsism dressed up in fancy clothes.)
Raw statistics in the hands of political ideologues are a very
dangerous thing.
Indeed they are.
BTW, how old are you Petteri?
I'm 33. How old are you, Bob?

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
(BTW, I'm not post-modern, quite the contrary. IMO post-modernism
is just solipsism dressed up in fancy clothes.)
Finally!! Common ground!
Raw statistics in the hands of political ideologues are a very
dangerous thing.
Indeed they are.
BTW, how old are you Petteri?
I'm 33. How old are you, Bob?
I've 20 years more practical experience than you, though even at 33 I was a conservative!
 
ROFLMAO!!!

Lou,

You are simply a unhappy New Yorker. Move to a Red State. Join Reality.
I 've seen the post on the main page of this web site and I dedided
to write some words.

The jobs cut issue in Europe has become very seriuos.

I'd like to show you what is doing in my country:

http://www.manifestazione3m.cjb.net

--
Gianrico
Prosumer photographer
Canon Fan - Apple Pro user
Italy
Gianrico

I am a fellow photographer and love Italy. My family is from there
near Stresa

The job situation in America is very bad also. 60% of the jobs
created in the last 4 years have been all low paying and in the
constructions industry.
The quality of jobs here have been terrible and 60% of our GNP over
the last 4 years has been caused by refinancing in the very
speculative and dangerous refinancing in the housing bubble market.
It will be worse than the internet collapse.

So keep you eye on the ball over the next year or two. Also,
unemployment data here is very misleading. THe data is take by
making random call to households to see how many people are
employeed in a family as opposed to using data from the
unemployment ofices

Underemployment, those starting businesses (90% fail), shipping of
jobs offshore, amd misleading data

However, we have wonderfull digital photography we can enjoy and
what a lovely advance in technology to help us enjoy the best
things in life

Ciao
 
For example, anti-intellectualism.
(It's quite striking to Europeans that many Americans considered
the fact that, say, Al Gore or John Kerry were clearly and
obviously intelligent as points against them rather than in their
favor.)
the truth, by nature, is easily accessible to everyone through
"common sense," and therefore anything that conflicts with "common
sense" must be false. Bob uses this type of argument quite often.
Guilty!!
Conversely, if you look at American heroes, you'll find that they
quite often embody this anti-intellectualism: the rags-to-riches
self-made millionaire, the gutter-to-the-top athlete, the Sergeant
York type simple-guy-from-the-farm-to-war-hero. American popular
imagination ranks the athlete higher than the scientist,
Some do, others do not!
the fiery
lay preacher higher than the theologian,
Depends on the fiery lay preacher and the theologian! Talk about using too broad a brush.
the courageous fighter
higher than the cool-thinking strategist.
Again, too broad a brush. I personally admire both. The former in the field and the latter in my officers.
Even the best-loved
American novelist is loved not so much for his books but because he
was a red-blooded shït-kicking Amurrican who just happened to write
some damn good books. (Papa Hemingway, of course.)
Never been a Hemingway fan.
And, of course, there is the fact of growing illiteracy and the
large number of people who are poorly educated, and must feel
inferior about it.
There you go again! There is no crisis here. Sure we have problems, but you've exaggerated grossly.
It's quite a natural human response to
compensate by telling yourself (and others) that education isn't
everything it's cracked up to be,
Straw man argument! Real education is invaluable.
and subsequently looking down on
those limp-wristed unpatriotic geeks
I do look find these types loathsome!
who like smelly cheeses, use
words like "nuanced," and may even speak a furrin language.
Straw man!
And, of
course, politics and the market being what they are, it pays to
cater to this mindset.
Man Petteri, you want it every which way but loose! You like the market, you don't like the market. You like capitalism, you don't like it. . . . Etc. etc. etc.

You're as slippery as an eel!
 
(BTW, I'm not post-modern, quite the contrary. IMO post-modernism
is just solipsism dressed up in fancy clothes.)
Finally!! Common ground!
Oh, I think we may have more common ground than you think. I have a hunch we actually agree about most things at the most fundamental levels. It's just that our interpretations of where things belong and our epistemological methods are very, very different. And I fear these differences are too wide to bridge or reconcile.
Raw statistics in the hands of political ideologues are a very
dangerous thing.
Indeed they are.
BTW, how old are you Petteri?
I'm 33. How old are you, Bob?
I've 20 years more practical experience than you, though even at 33
I was a conservative!
I was a conservative too, twenty years ago. Been drifting leftward ever since. Constant re-examination of my positions, you see.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
bobtyrell wrote:
[snip]
the truth, by nature, is easily accessible to everyone through
"common sense," and therefore anything that conflicts with "common
sense" must be false. Bob uses this type of argument quite often.
Guilty!!
Trouble is, you're wrong. Relativistic physics and quantum mechanics, for example, defy common sense (how can something be both a wave and a particle?) yet their dictions can be empirically demonstrated (fire photons through a diffraction grating and you get a diffraction pattern; capture photons in a digital camera and they behave like discrete particles... or fire a satellite with a clock into orbit, retrieve it, and compare the time to another clock left on the ground).

"Common sense" is merely something we've learned to believe. It's a product of cultural conditioning, not a reliable epistemological method. Reason works much better -- and we can apply it to propositions we believe through "common sense" as well.

I believe that a proposition should only be considered true if it is supported by argument and experience -- common sense, intuition, divine revelation, or authority don't count.

[snip]
And, of course, there is the fact of growing illiteracy and the
large number of people who are poorly educated, and must feel
inferior about it.
There you go again! There is no crisis here. Sure we have
problems, but you've exaggerated grossly.
Perhaps. It's quite possible I'm mistaken about this. My own experiences of the American educational system were uniformly positive, as a matter of fact. OTOH I already knew how to read when I first went to school in the States, and both the schools I attended there were somewhere around the 97:th percentile in the SAT ranking, so I really don't know how typical my experience was.

And then there are practical observations, such as the little pictures American fast food restaurants use on their cash registers, while in most other countries they just write the name of the food on the buttons instead.

[snip]
And, of
course, politics and the market being what they are, it pays to
cater to this mindset.
Man Petteri, you want it every which way but loose! You like the
market, you don't like the market. You like capitalism, you don't
like it. . . . Etc. etc. etc.

You're as slippery as an eel!
You haven't been paying attention... or, perhaps, you find it impossible to grasp a world-view that isn't binary -- good or evil, black or white, capitalism or socialism.

For the record: I think the means of production should be privately owned, and I think that market economics are the best mechanism we're aware of for balancing supply and demand and stimulating innovation and progress. The state has repeatedly proven to be a terribly inefficient manager of capital.

However, I also believe that left to itself, such a system will result in the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few people, immense suffering and poverty for very many people, and eventually an unstable situation that will implode. Therefore, I think it's vital that the market is counterbalanced by strong and democratically run political power that keeps it from running amok.

Moreover, I believe that in an information economy where knowledge is a major means of production in itself, it's vital that the intellectual potential of the largest possible number of people be mobilized. This means providing every educational possibility to everyone, regardless of wealth or birth. This costs a lot of money, and the market by itself won't make it happen.

In other words, I like some things about the market, and I dislike other things about it. Just like I like some things about America, and dislike others about it. What's so difficult to grasp about this?

I outlined this in another post on this thread, btw.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
For the record: I think the means of production should be privately
owned, and I think that market economics are the best mechanism
we're aware of for balancing supply and demand and stimulating
innovation and progress. The state has repeatedly proven to be a
terribly inefficient manager of capital.
Another area of agreement!
However, I also believe that left to itself, such a system will
result in the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few
people, immense suffering and poverty for very many people, and
eventually an unstable situation that will implode. Therefore, I
think it's vital that the market is counterbalanced by strong and
democratically run political power that keeps it from running amok.
I don't entirely disagree. Your "middle way" is precisely what every thinking person accepts. I know of no one, not the founding fathers, no one, that believes that the markets should be absolutely unrestrained and certainly that is not the case in the USA. We simply disagree on on the degree of government intervention. I believe less government should be our bias even when so called enlightened people such as yourself speciously demonstrate the need for more.
Moreover, I believe that in an information economy where knowledge
is a major means of production in itself, it's vital that the
intellectual potential of the largest possible number of people be
mobilized. This means providing every educational possibility to
everyone, regardless of wealth or birth. This costs a lot of money,
and the market by itself won't make it happen.
I believe in public education - obviously! My father and grandfathers attended one room school houses. They were extremely well educated. Both ran large businesses. More money does NOT, I repeat NOT NOT NOT NOT translate into better education (just look at the court enforced expenditures in Kansas City with NO improvement in measurable performance). You've too strong a bias for grand government expenditures for my taste and that why I call you a leftist - perhaps not as extreme as others, but insidiously wrong nontheless.
In other words, I like some things about the market, and I dislike
other things about it. Just like I like some things about America,
and dislike others about it. What's so difficult to grasp about
this?
I outlined this in another post on this thread, btw.
Excuuuuuuuuze me!! Sorry I didn't see it! ;

Cheers
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
If you're intelligent, open minded, and seek the Truth you WILL be a conservative. Period.
(BTW, I'm not post-modern, quite the contrary. IMO post-modernism
is just solipsism dressed up in fancy clothes.)
Finally!! Common ground!
Oh, I think we may have more common ground than you think. I have a
hunch we actually agree about most things at the most fundamental
levels. It's just that our interpretations of where things belong
and our epistemological methods are very, very different. And I
fear these differences are too wide to bridge or reconcile.
Raw statistics in the hands of political ideologues are a very
dangerous thing.
Indeed they are.
BTW, how old are you Petteri?
I'm 33. How old are you, Bob?
I've 20 years more practical experience than you, though even at 33
I was a conservative!
I was a conservative too, twenty years ago. Been drifting leftward
ever since. Constant re-examination of my positions, you see.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
You've seen first hand our schools and still believe this poppycock about a literacy crisis! Talk about denying the information in front of your nose!
the truth, by nature, is easily accessible to everyone through
"common sense," and therefore anything that conflicts with "common
sense" must be false. Bob uses this type of argument quite often.
Guilty!!
Trouble is, you're wrong. Relativistic physics and quantum
mechanics, for example, defy common sense (how can something be
both a wave and a particle?) yet their dictions can be empirically
demonstrated (fire photons through a diffraction grating and you
get a diffraction pattern; capture photons in a digital camera and
they behave like discrete particles... or fire a satellite with a
clock into orbit, retrieve it, and compare the time to another
clock left on the ground).

"Common sense" is merely something we've learned to believe. It's a
product of cultural conditioning, not a reliable epistemological
method. Reason works much better -- and we can apply it to
propositions we believe through "common sense" as well.

I believe that a proposition should only be considered true if it
is supported by argument and experience -- common sense, intuition,
divine revelation, or authority don't count.

[snip]
And, of course, there is the fact of growing illiteracy and the
large number of people who are poorly educated, and must feel
inferior about it.
There you go again! There is no crisis here. Sure we have
problems, but you've exaggerated grossly.
Perhaps. It's quite possible I'm mistaken about this. My own
experiences of the American educational system were uniformly
positive, as a matter of fact. OTOH I already knew how to read when
I first went to school in the States, and both the schools I
attended there were somewhere around the 97:th percentile in the
SAT ranking, so I really don't know how typical my experience was.

And then there are practical observations, such as the little
pictures American fast food restaurants use on their cash
registers, while in most other countries they just write the name
of the food on the buttons instead.

[snip]
And, of
course, politics and the market being what they are, it pays to
cater to this mindset.
Man Petteri, you want it every which way but loose! You like the
market, you don't like the market. You like capitalism, you don't
like it. . . . Etc. etc. etc.

You're as slippery as an eel!
You haven't been paying attention... or, perhaps, you find it
impossible to grasp a world-view that isn't binary -- good or evil,
black or white, capitalism or socialism.

For the record: I think the means of production should be privately
owned, and I think that market economics are the best mechanism
we're aware of for balancing supply and demand and stimulating
innovation and progress. The state has repeatedly proven to be a
terribly inefficient manager of capital.

However, I also believe that left to itself, such a system will
result in the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few
people, immense suffering and poverty for very many people, and
eventually an unstable situation that will implode. Therefore, I
think it's vital that the market is counterbalanced by strong and
democratically run political power that keeps it from running amok.

Moreover, I believe that in an information economy where knowledge
is a major means of production in itself, it's vital that the
intellectual potential of the largest possible number of people be
mobilized. This means providing every educational possibility to
everyone, regardless of wealth or birth. This costs a lot of money,
and the market by itself won't make it happen.

In other words, I like some things about the market, and I dislike
other things about it. Just like I like some things about America,
and dislike others about it. What's so difficult to grasp about
this?

I outlined this in another post on this thread, btw.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
If you're intelligent, open minded, and seek the Truth you WILL be
a conservative. Period.
By that token you should be a raging communist then.

Which truth are you talking about anyway. Last time I looked there was a lot of opinion, contradictory evidence, and at best a balance of probabilities based on what evidence was available. Truth? Only truths I am aware of are those that are self defining, such as "50% of all people are of below average intelligence".
Steve
(BTW, I'm not post-modern, quite the contrary. IMO post-modernism
is just solipsism dressed up in fancy clothes.)
Finally!! Common ground!
Oh, I think we may have more common ground than you think. I have a
hunch we actually agree about most things at the most fundamental
levels. It's just that our interpretations of where things belong
and our epistemological methods are very, very different. And I
fear these differences are too wide to bridge or reconcile.
Raw statistics in the hands of political ideologues are a very
dangerous thing.
Indeed they are.
BTW, how old are you Petteri?
I'm 33. How old are you, Bob?
I've 20 years more practical experience than you, though even at 33
I was a conservative!
I was a conservative too, twenty years ago. Been drifting leftward
ever since. Constant re-examination of my positions, you see.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top