patrick.net

Missing = thinking you are important to them

Of course Mother Theresea would count.

You matter when your number is over 1000000.

So by that measure, when you consider all the tabloid junkies & guys who remember her from her Playboy days, Anna Nicole Smith will probably "matter".

How about social democracies? How are they going?

Social democracies totally s*ck ass. Except when compared to every other form of government.

So by that measure, when you consider all the tabloid junkies & guys who remember her from her Playboy days, Anna Nicole Smith will probably “matter”.

Yes. "Matter" is a neutral word.

More to the point, does anyone give a flying fukk?

People care enough to watch Alien vs. Predator and Freddy vs. Jason.

It’s a free market for trust as well as labor and capital.

Trust should be used sparingly. Strategic balance is more reliable.

It's paradise if you use George W. Bush's dictionary.

I saw the story about the BMW, yes... it created quite a storm at the time. Somewhat connected to pre-Revolution French attitudes, perhaps...

Yes, anyone is welcome to talk to me any time they wish if they are interested in learning what words like “market” and “capitalism” mean aside from the rhetoric and politics.

The market makes a good servant but a poor master?

Does 3 years sociology and political economy study qualify me as pre-informed? As well as innate notions of fair play and social security. Have you read Marris on 'The Politics of Uncertainty'? Perhaps there would be fewer massacres and holdups etc if people got a fairer deal from their society, rather than resorting to acts of desperation.

What do these symbols '2', '+', '=' and '5' mean again?

I have no idea what we as a whole lose if nobody is allowed to carry a gun, plain and simple. I grew up in a place with strict gun control, lived in a few countries with strict gun control, all of them have substantially lower crime rate than the US.

I do not want to drag the thread into *yet another* gun control tangent, but I can't let this one pass without comment.

Anyone who still buys into the popular (misguided) notion that civilian gun ban = safer society should consider the information contained in the following link:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

--Some countries have per capita private gun ownership rates similar to U.S. (Switzerland, Finland, Canada), yet MUCH lower gun & non-gun homicide rates.

--Some countries that either ban or severely restrict private gun ownership have far higher gun-homicide rates (South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, etc.)

It's not just % of gun ownership that matters --it's a whole lot of other factors, including distribution of wealth, social/economic stability, level of political corruption & organized crime, average literacy & education level, population growth rate (younger, poorer populations tend to have more violent crime per capita than older), etc.

It’s not just % of gun ownership that matters –it’s a whole lot of other factors, including distribution of wealth, social/economic stability, level of political corruption & organized crime, average literacy & education level, population growth rate (younger, poorer populations tend to have more violent crime per capita than older), etc.

Exactly.

Countries with beautiful sceneries (Canada, Switzerland, Finland, etc) but few people have lower overall crime rate.

Poor countries do worse. The key is to be rich.

I think the world would be much much better if we restrict gun usage to hunting vermin on hooves (can anyone tell that I really hate deer?).

It's not money, it's social inequality. South Africa is relatively rich, but there's a lot of racial and economic tension plus lots of transients. Homogenous and relatively economically equal countries tend to do better.

I have argued that minimum wage creates poverty.

Someone with similar views has excellent arguments and data here:

http://www.epionline.org/

South Africa is relatively rich, but there’s a lot of racial and economic tension plus lots of transients.

It is a result of ending apartheid too abruptly. One cannot implement political changes without FIRST having economic reforms in place.

Apartheid is evil. But the transition from it must be done right.

Russia also moved too quickly. Fortunately, Putin seems to be making sure that things go well.

When I say restrict, I don't mean by law. I mean just don't use.

Frickin Fortress South Bay

The new housing tracker now has 12 months of history. The median asking is down by 6.6% YOY.

SP already posted the link to SJMN article where problem about median was clearly mentioned. It's still buried deep in the content, but median myth might be exposed on the headline soon.

The tide has definitely turned. It's a matter of time before popular opinion and numbers reflect the knowledge.

–Some countries have per capita private gun ownership rates similar to U.S. (Switzerland, Finland, Canada), yet MUCH lower gun & non-gun homicide rates.

–Some countries that either ban or severely restrict private gun ownership have far higher gun-homicide rates (South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, etc.)

exactly, that just proves nutso societies shouldn't have high gun ownership rates for their own good...

The other countries listed comparable to the US rates can not even be considered 1st world countries, so that's telling you something straight away. The social settlements of Switzerland, Canada and Finland are more cohesive and equitable, but there could be still more points of cultural difference -- there are certain excitable cultural types in eastern Europe and elsewhere which I wouldn't want combined with high access to guns...

just thinking of the reality of South Africa, it's had a longstanding 'white siege' society ruled by a white European minority, where people are increasingly leaving as apartheid and white political domination closes down -- with high rates of gun ownership, and the complete inability to enforce the law in shanty towns as well. To compare simple statistics between countries is really not apples with apples, every country and region needs to be examined uniquely...

Peter P Says:

I have argued that minimum wage creates poverty.

Sure, it's possible. Which means that you need to provide other welfare assistance to low income earners through the tax system so they can survive and participate in otherwise affluent societies. If you keep wages low by de-regulating, you will need to supplement earnings through other redistributive methods such as healthcare benefits, free schooling, family benefits, supported housing, and so on. Analysts always do pre-transfer and post-transfer analyses of people's real conditions in poverty studies...

DS,

But my point is, private gun ownership in itself does not make a society "crazy" (dangerous & unstable). As you said, very unequal distribution of wealth/power, the existence of large permanently impoverished/disenfranchised underclass, endemic political corruption, illiteracy, and as Peter P pointed out, ratio of natural resources to population has a lot more to do with homicide rates.

Yes. Except the 'natural resources' point is barely valid at all. Britain relies on its strengths as a financial centre for a lot of its income, for instance -- unless you count human capital, engineering, technology and innovation as 'natural resources', of course.

For whatever reason a country is relatively affluent, try comparing per capita GDPs as I did earlier -- and your own cited article describes 'upper middle income' and 'high income' countries, of which the US is one of the highest. Peter P's constant arguments that the North American continent of which the US takes up a large part is 'resource poor' are not valid, not even considering the other value-adding that takes place to push average GDP even higher.

whew, glad you agree, bap, we're seeing eye to eye at last.

but think about the desperation factor of the 'addicts and illegals' and how that can turn into a cycle of crime. (US also has a very high incarceration rate compared with just about all Western countries.) I don't think there's any more people who want 'something for nothing' than here, however you have much higher wage inequality or 'multiples' than anywhere in the West also.

sorry to hate your freedoms...

Peter P’s constant arguments that the North American continent of which the US takes up a large part is ‘resource poor’ are not valid, not even considering the other value-adding that takes place to push average GDP even higher.

America is not resource poor. Far from it. But it has a lot of people to feed. In fact, 300 million of them.

compare the land area of UK with the US and divide them into the respective populations...

UK: 85M / 94,000 = 904 persons per sq mile
US: 300M / 3,619,000 = 83 persons per sq mile

hmmm...

Oh DS, my oh my. I can't believe you're actually trying to pin something like happened today on folks like me who dare to -- hold your breath -- *create* jobs in the economy. I suppose that is the government's sole domain in your vision? You've been here long enough to know that I am not afraid to deeply criticize problems I see within American society and government. I did so fairly fiercely above. But blaming all the worst problems on guys and gals like me who rather prefer the basic idea that people should have strong incentives to innovate, work hard, and progress?

As to the postmumbleism, let me ask you this: regardless of the symbol(s) used, we'll say the symbol in this case is '|', what is the difference in how the speed of light is perceived, measured, and understood? Or is just refusing to believe that "light has a speed" enough to invalidate objectivism?

hey, the speed of light changes in different media ;) not to mention the duality theory of particle-wave behaviour which we still don't understand...

anyway, the notion of "speed" is just an ‘exchanger’ discourse (or discursive practice) that that links the analytic-programmatic levels of the “sciences” and the rigidities, inertia and opacity which the real displays in its concrete functioning... :P

from nytimes

Jay Kim, owner of Sushi by Jay leaves flagship sushi bar at Brothers Market in Dobbs Ferry, NY, and moves to nearby Stop & Shop supermarket; Kim now has 31 fresh sushi bars in Stop & Shops across Northeast

from OO

Korean, to be exact. American Korean from the Bay Area, the rumor says, Jay Kim.

something that's bothering me
people saying that the college should have locked down the campus after finding 2 people, girl and guy, shot in what appeared to be an ex-lover bf white guy exacting some karma
alleged korean student rampaging 1/2 mile away 2 hours later and it is connected ?
did the jilted white guy morph into a korean ??

in explaining my views to my 16 yr old daughter I said its like a nyc subway shooting shutting down wall street
or an la gang shooting closing disney

tell me what am I missing ?

Randy H Says:
Oh DS, my oh my. I can’t believe you’re actually trying to pin something like happened today on folks like me who dare to — hold your breath — *create* jobs in the economy.

I accept what you're saying, Randy, more or less, but you were just talking about destroying jobs. The reality is that you use others as instrumentalities in order to achieve a business purpose. There is a huge level of debate and discourse over what is acceptable practice in workers rights and conditions and safety nets, as per the earlier reference to Marris' writing on exactly this topic, if you Amazon it. The argument is that risk is being increasingly heaped upon, passed down to and internalised by the weakest and poorest, by corporations and business. There is something being implemented here right now by a neoliberal Federal govt called 'Work Choices' which takes away all worker choice by regulation -- it is scary enough to most that they will probably lose the next election over it.

e.g.
Prof Ron McCallum on Workplace Relations - The Fantasy of Choice

or e.g.
"A critical audience like this one is conscious of the shadow side of globalisation, which includes:

- Subversion of national development strategies – often products of democratically arrived-at choices about what sort of socio-economic development we find desirable;
- Contraction and destruction of social programs for the alleviation of poverty, morbidity, relative social deprivation, social insecurity, and so on;
- Undermining of labour rights – directly through ‘deregulation’ – such as the Howard govt’s destruction of a great deal of our labour rights recently – and indirectly through moving manufacturing to labour-repressive, low-wage areas such as China.
- Accelerated socio-economic polarisation, within countries and internationally: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer much faster under globalisation.

So let’s unpack some of the rhetoric of globalisation. For starters, where did it come from? Far from dropping from out of space, it was and remains a political project driven by powerful nation-states (USA and UK above all) and their client states (such as Australia) in which neo-liberals have dominated political life. To a large extent, globalisation means Americanisation, especially when we look at how it is institutionalised, and the main international organs pushing it, such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO.

The political program of economic liberalism was first put into effect in Britain in the 1830s and 1840s. It came in a series of aggressive legislative interventions (palaver about ‘small government’ and ‘laissez-faire’ notwithstanding), much like those of the Howard government today. The economic liberals set out to destroy poor-relief systems and all forms of social provision and security, in order to bolster capital’s power to force labour into the new factories of the industrial revolution and suppress unionism, so that the owners had complete control over wages and conditions. In its recent interventions into welfare provision and industrial relations, the Howard government has followed the same agenda 160 years later. In both cases the goal of policy has been the creation of radical social insecurity.

The ideology churned out in support of this program consisted in a theology about the market as the beneficent guarantor of economic efficiency and equitable distribution of income and life chances. If you insert the word ‘global’ in front of ‘market’, we can see that the same idolatry of market mechanisms, as the mystical guarantors of efficiency of social equity, confronts us today.

In spite of its rhetoric, economic liberalism – past and present – has never had anything to do with small government, or with the governing class abandoning the will to govern. During the greater part of the 19th century most of Britain was under permanent (para)military occupation to enforce the simple ‘freedoms’ of the rich under economic liberalism against popular resistance. But the labour market itself (that artefact of liberal politics) has proved the greatest mechanism of domination and subordination: now, as then, the propertyless every day face the ultimatum: buckle under, or starve.

Once again, we must note that – rhetoric notwithstanding – neo-liberalism had nothing whatever to do with small government and abandoning the will to rule. Thatcher’s and Reagan’s regimes, its prototypes, were spectacularly authoritarian and interventionist, especially towards organised labour, and internationally aggressive."

SP Says:
In other words, 21st century Communist Aristocrats seem to have the same attitude as 18th century French Aristocrats.

This is post-communist market China where narcissists drive BMWs, SP. Besides, China has never really been Communist , it's been a totalitarian command-capitalist state. And the corruption of party officials is legion. But this story was about the rise of rich factory owners and their self-entitled kin. The long-standing business activity in Shanghai, HK, and so on is certainly not Communist in inspiration.

Narcissism and self-entitlement is a constant everywhere, unfortunately.

CB Says:

> Usually I don’t like to debate gun control but I
> went to Virginia Tech and I am really saddened
> by what happened.

It’s a sad day, but it’s even sadder to think that we will see more stupid laws when more gun laws will do as little to stop gun violence as drug laws have done to stop drug use.

> Pro-gun supporters always trot out the “guns don’t
> kill people, people do argument”.

Most Pro-gun people want tough punishment for people doing bad things with guns, but most Anti-gun people just want to ban guns but will not support tough crimes for people who do bad things with guns (e.g. come on he had to deal with poverty les give him probation since it was only his second drive by shooting)…

Different Sean Says:

> There is a huge level of debate and discourse over
> what is acceptable practice in workers rights and
> conditions and safety nets, as per the earlier reference
> to Marris’ writing on exactly this topic, if you Amazon it.

I believe in “equal” rights.

If a worker commits to say for 5 years no matter what an employer should commit to pay them for 5 years no matter what.

If a worker can leave with two weeks notice an employer should be able to let them go with two weeks notice…

Most Pro-gun people want tough punishment for people doing bad things with guns, but most Anti-gun people just want to ban guns but will not support tough crimes for people who do bad things with guns

Yes, my support for board application of efficient death penalty has been attacked many times.

If a worker can leave with two weeks notice an employer should be able to let them go with two weeks notice…

In fact, the "two week" notice is merely a courtesy. As a result, employers do not have to give notice at all.

If you remove the guns as completely as possible, as has happened in UK and Oz, then drive-by shootings would diminish markedly... There is an iterative process of confiscation under the law. Admittedly, it's harder to keep black market guns out of circulation in UK with a relatively easy supply from East Europe etc, but it is contained within a smaller and smaller section of the population, as Tony Blair just got into trouble over saying... As HARM's cited article points out, tho, homicide rates in UK, including from firearms, were already very low historically.

I don't have any experience to back me up, but I assume if a company has more than one or two rounds of sudden layoffs or if an employee has more than one or two sudden departures, people will start to notice.

last e.g. : Revealed: how AWAs strip work rights

Bap33,

That's why you gotta be a moderate. Then you can be FOR killing babies AND criminals. Like me!

in explaining my views to my 16 yr old daughter I said its like a nyc subway shooting shutting down wall street
or an la gang shooting closing disney

The difference is that this is Virginia.

And not the Northern Virginia/DC part.

Around those parts, crime doesn't happen other than the usual alcohol related ones. They live in a very special place.

(Well, not nearly as special as the Bay Area, but you get what I mean.)

but most Anti-gun people just want to ban guns but will not support tough crimes for people who do bad things with guns

I think you meant to say "tough punishments".

But in any case, therein lies the rub. Politicians always campaign on the platform of being tough on crime - it gets the police vote, it gets the senior vote... heck, it gets every vote.

But look at our success story, or lack thereof. How is it that we have more people in prison per capita than... well... any country?

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. What we're doing is insane.

And, as usual, I only offer problems - no solutions. :) :) :)

apropos of nothing in the later stages of this thread but strangely relevant if 'twere nigh the start:

"Double, Double, Toil and Trouble"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double,_Double,_Toil_and_Trouble