Serbia beats Germany!!! What is going on out there?
Yes, USA ties it up! 2-2 w/8 minutes left! C'mon boys, finish, finish, finish!
Robbed! Absolutely robbed of a 3-2 win! What a joke! The referee in that game sucked. I didn't see anything wrong with that set play that would have given the USA the win. The guy was letting far worse contact to "play on" throughout the game & then decided to make a call which decided the game for nothing special?!? Geez....
At the same time, that's why defense wins championships... you only need 1 goal for the win so USA has only itself to blame for that...
I also say that Slovenia's 2nd goal was offsides. Crazy bad luck for USA that game. Maybe they still have a shot to move on but it's not looking good.
so everyone has to deal with dumb ref mistakes.
lol, I'm going through the fifa site for the groups and checking the 'analysis' vs the current results. so far they're 50-50 on predictions. Ie, flip a coin and say who's in likely vs outsider.
so far after 2 games, both groups A and B are done, shy of a blow out in 2 different games (going two different directions).
If england puts a pounding on algeria today, then the US may be in trouble (though that group is a bit closer)
yeah, it was a bad call on the disallowed goal, and usa got robbed on that one play. But, if they almost never call a foul on the defenders on a free kick like that (since it means a penalty), and if people start falling or flying around, they'll often just blow the play dead and give it to the defenders. still a terrible call, and that ref sucked on some other ones too for both sides.
But, team USA has no one to blame but themselves. Their back line played so terrible. That wasn't offsides on the 2nd slovenian goal, it looked like it in real time, but it was just a good break, and our defenders and not pushing forward at the right time. They didn't pressure the slovenian attackers coming up the center of the box all game, which was to blame for the first goal, and several other chaces for slovenia. We got lucky that more goals weren't tacked on. Onyewu should not play for the rest of the Cup. He's still not back from injury, hasn't played any good games in a while, and has been a liablity for us both games. Cheronolodo got us into a lot of messes too.
We should be good to advance, as long as we can beat Algeria by 2 goals. If we beat them by one goal, then it will be at worst a tiebreak with Slovenia, most likely on goals scored, which I think the usa should have the advantage on, since we're up against Alegeria next, and Slovenia will go up against England. If England-Slovenia is a draw, then it should be a 3 way tie breaker. If England and Slovenia is decisive one way or the other, USA should advance. If USA draws or loses next game (they shouldn't, but they've blown a lot of games in the cup before), they are out.
well, i guess that's relative. i don't think you can talk about "races" regarding humans because the biological differences aren't great enough. humanity is one race and it can be divided into ethnicities in order to determine specific differences. at the moment it is consensus within psychology that even character traits, emotions and biases are to some extent genetically inherited. on some levels, this is important enough to consider.Originally Posted by TyShine
it is natural for the human being to favor those that look like yourself. you don't need to be aware of that and this has been tested empirically. you can say that we should not select on the basis of ethnicity but all people do it anyway. i agree that we have to try to diminish it but as this is an actual problem it is an important issue which has to do with the differences between ethnicities. well, with differences between their looks.
when it comes to capitalism vs. socialism what is important to me is that every citizen should have a right to live. this includes aliment and shelter. if he can't obtain these vital necessities by himself (because he's handicapped, too old, etc.) the society ought to provide it for him. all based on our western societies which are rich enough to actually make this true.
i'm an absurdist so philosphically the individual can exploit his society's offerings as much as he want without ever giving anything back. but in the paradisaic imagination of a perfect society every citizen has responsibility to try to get a job and to respect all rules. i lately thought that every western political philosophy would have probably worked out perfectly well if anyone at any time tried to live up to all laws. if i look around me everybody cheats the society: family, friends, myself, politicians. if everybody just did what he thinks is best for the common good, we'd have our common good. but the human being is inherently self-centered and egoistic so we haven't.
did i actually see someone defending gun ownership laws in america? when i can buy a gun where i buy my pants, so to say, it is obvious that this will lead to problems. especially in troubled neighborhoods. now, i'm completely aware of that michael moore's films are as left populist as they can possibly get but there's much truth in his bowling for columbine. the simple data provides that over 10000 people die in america each year by guns while the average in other highly developed countries is 200 or so. what other reason could this have?
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 06-18-2010 at 03:38 AM.
As far as differences between America & other countries, I actually come back to your genetic/ethnic argument. One can suggest that there are substantive differences that influence Americans towards greater violence. There have been some articles that discuss this perspective. I don't know really though. In general, I'm deeply opposed to the idea that certain parts of the population have "special" rights that others don't, especially when it comes to the power of self-defense or taking a life. Orwellian nightmares are what come of such an approach to governance IMO.
So, in my mind, I always want to have the ability to defend my life, my family, & my home under the nightmare scenario. I can say the one time I responded to suspected break-in in my home at 2:30 a.m. on a Friday, I was very glad that both my wife & I had a gun, a home-invasion plan, & had practiced it. We executed it & then waited 10 minutes for the police to arrive. I can tell you it was the longest 10 minutes of my life but I felt I had a fighting chance at least because I was prepared. If all I had was a baseball bat, I would have felt immeasurably worse. In my mind, for a man who has a wife & family to not prepare to defend that homestead when under duress is an irresponsible man & does not deserve to retain his family. Yes, this is a bit of a "Sith" argument (anyone play KOTOR? seriously, this discussion is in there....). I'm not blaming such a man for his family's duress but only that to not prepare for such a situation is irresponsible as one of the first & most important roles of leadership at any level is providing for the safety & well-being of those under your care. I suppose that's a full-circle argument isn't it? I guess I just think individuals are always in a better position to examine the specifics of any situation & decide for themselves how best to deal with it vs. a government/social mandate.
The idea that safety is created by disarming everyone is a myth & a socialist fantasy imo. Safety is impossible in an imperfect world but at least I'd like to retain my right to be able to respond w/deadly force if/when required vs. having to depend on "society" which will always be 10 minutes after-the-fact from when the moment of truth actually occurs.
We're a very troubled people. We probably shouldn't be allowed anything more dangerous than a spork and a padded cell, but good luck trying to impose that.
ugh... England is playing like crap. way more scoring chances, but they suck.
It's such a different perspective that we have. I had my front door unlocked since I'm young. Even in Montreal, my door has been unlocked for 5 years and I've never been stressed about break-in. I prefer not be armed and knowing that the other guy wanting to enter my home won't be armed too. This guy would be more affraid than me and scared people can do dangerous thing. Just the idea of having to shoot to death a human being and having to live with that on my mind scares me.
Your last paragraph. What the heck, it's a joke? Or is it just the NRA propaganda coming in. It's funny, socialism would care most about educating people and taking care who have disorder that can endanger citizen lifes. The safety is atteined, not by disarming everyone, but by helping citizens in need not having to act dangerously towards other citizens to attein what they want.
For the capitalism parts... The state has played a major role in the economic development of every modern nation. Without a strong state and one being able to applied law and rules, there wouldn't be any stable market as there is now at such low-cost maintenance. Yes, particular can make in place self-regulated rules, but it's really less cost-effective in almost all cases than when it's the states that take care of it.
Also, some things that are good for society wouldn't be put in place if the states wouldn't do it. Also, there is program put in place that pay themselves really easily. Child-care program for example especially in poor neighborhood. Have you heard about externality. The company aren't taking in account the real cost of their activity. Who else than the states can do that? Most states activity produces positive externality. Public transportation is even positive for car-user because there is less trafic. Child-care is an other exemple, public school...
"I don't think it's the government's job to take care of me from cradle to grave". Which states do that? Really. Name me one that has done that? In fact, in USA it's one of the place where there is not lots of social mobility compared to other developped country. So no states makes you king of your own destiny. No, it, generally prevents you from developping all your capacity if the place you are born doen't allow to develop yourself, because of socio-economic caracteristics. Government never forced me to do anything, they prevent me of doing thing with laws. It helps me to develop myself with free education and almost free university (1200$ a semester). I'll repay it with my taxes later. I just had a knee surgery, without the helps of the state it would have been really difficult for me to have it. If I hadn't had this surgery, I would have developped knee problem really early in my life and then I woudl have been a weight for the states...
Prevention is really a good investment and the States is the best actor in society to do that.
I'm not against free-entrepreneurship, nor communist or even socialist. I'm just really tired of people telling the states is there to steal their money. I'm working with people that says that the states takes all the money they have in their pocket, but they have a big HD TV and drives a mercedes...
In my bacchalauréat I was studying economy and politics and I had particular interest in public policy and I've seen multitude of proof that the states can be a very positive actor in society. Why do you think that the society with the best prosperity indes are the one that have a important states. Now that I'm in management I'm seeing that the public administration are gaining experience in productivity from the private-sector, but are also helping the private-sector to gain productivity by having an administration that allow scale-economy (économie d'échelle???)...
I have difficulty to be coherent because I'm used to argue on that in french...
Last edited by SVPM; 06-18-2010 at 04:45 AM.
in michael moore's film he also interview canadians in big cities. they don't lock their doors at night. neither do i when i'm at my parent's in germany or in my own flat in a big city in denmark. it's not necessary because nobody will break in. if you feel safer in america with a gun that may be justified. but then you have to ask yourself why. and i'd say it's because of its brutal form of capitalism that leaves a good deal of the population in extremely poor conditions as if they would live in an underdeveloped country. of course, if you see no perspectives in a legal life and feel your society has failed and forsaken you, this leads to more crime.
you can argue whether economic equality should be desirable for a society. my personal opinion is that everybody should have equal opportunities and, thus, economic differences would be justified by different dedication and hard work (quite american but not all american reality) even though this isn't even absolutely just because people are born with disabilities or with rich parents, etc. but if you compare economic equality and crime in the world, you get the same countries on both sides. and the united states is the only highly developed country that has such an unequal allocation of resources and at the same time that much crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
I fear that whatever that reason is (eg if you take it down as ghettoization of certain comunities) it may well come back in terms of root cause to one of the principles (like free capitalism) that are generally treasured in the USA.
"I obviously think that the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution gives me the right to bear & keep arms. "
I guess the question then is if it was very clear that the constitution caused many more peopel to die with a particular amendment than need to and was otherwise very bad by moral standards would you support repealing it? If so I presume just appealing to the fact it is in the constitution doesnt make it moraly defendable in itself.
I think you are heading in the direction of the principle
"freedom from is not freedom to".
The US is really into freedom from government intervention but this clearly doesnt givethe disadvantaged more freedom - it gives them less because they dont have the support.
BTW pity we couldnt get a connection to play a game today
anyway BTW I live in NZ and I dont fear a criminal coming to my house with a gun and noone has ever broken into my house anyway.
And most dog bite attacks here seem to be on the owners and their and their neighbours children. So I'd be for preventing the importing and commercial breeding of dangerous dog breeds also.
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-18-2010 at 06:58 AM.
Your ideology is based in modern-era thinking. That was my point about "living outside your time". We can't. We think like modern-era people.
In Andrew Jackson's presidential term, there was outrage over raising the Federal Income tax to a proposed 3%. Now we have rates 10x that & that's lower than most of the rest of the industrialized world & I'm supposed to say "yes, please take some more!". No thanks. You can't convince me that America became an economic powerhouse because of government regulation. Nor can you convince me that it's a moral imperative that I give more than 50% of my income to others rather than for myself to use as I see fit. I may in fact choose to give away 100% of my income to society/others but for such an action to be coerced upon a society's citizens is evil. Given my perspective, less % is better by definition than more %. By definition, governments are a tax economically, not producers. Yes, some things are more efficient effective on a societal basis such as internal defense (legal system), external defense (military), transportation system (roads). However, everything isn't better just because government got involved. In most cases, especially economically, it can get worse because there is no accountability, in other words, no self-interest motive.
I think private entities have a stronger self-interest motive, which in most cases, yields better economic results. Take the Gulf spill w/BP, does anyone genuinely believe BP wanted this to happen? Does anyone believe that BP benefits from this? Does anyone benefit from this other than the government getting another opportunity at a power play? Pleazzz. It's basically going to bankrupt BP, their employees will be out of work, & so many others of us along the Gulf coast. The government however will grow. I don't see that as a positive.
Did I start out with a nice house? Nice car? No debt? No. I got married in college, slept on the floor for 2 years, worked 16-18 hours a day, while not in school, 7 days a week & had a cardboard box for a table w/2 card table chairs. I've slept on a futon for 9 months in a cubicle in my office to save money, send a message to my employer (long story), & reconcile w/my wife later in life. I've done a lot of crazy things to achieve specific goals. In my worldview, when there's a will, there's a way & I don't expect others to give me charity, especially not if coerced through social policies vs. genuine goodwill, to accomplish my goals. I've worked 20+ years, being responsible with my money & time, etc... to get where I am today. Should I have to pay for others who are unwilling to sleep on the floor? Work 7 days a week? Finish their schooling & do well academically? I don't think so. Am I against helping others? Absolutely not. I just happen to think I'm in a better position to spend my money on charitable contributions than the government is & I can't be scammed easily. It's why every charity I contribute to, I've met the person(s) receiving the money & seen what it will be used for. Socialistic policies & economics essentially take money from people by force (government policy at risk of confinement or loss of property) to distribute as society sees fit, oftentimes ineffectively & inappropriately. While I agree it's a necessary evil (per above list of social functions) to even have a society (we must agree on something to be shared responsibility), that doesn't mean I should rubber-stamp anything the government does. By definition, the more power something or some entity possesses, the more likely they are to abuse it. The government isn't exempt from this principle but you seem to think that it is. So be it.
I think there are plenty of historical & present-day examples to demonstrate this is even more fallacious than believing in individual rights/responsibility. For every government run program, I'm pretty certain substituting a well-qualified & motivated private group can do a better job in every instance. Governments don't have a monopoly on goodwill, good sense, or good judgement. In fact, history shows, far from it. I'll take a private organization over a government organization to achieve a specific task, any day of the week.
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 06-18-2010 at 07:03 AM.
There are several competing theories. I saw a program on this topic on TV (something like 20/20 or 60 minutes) years ago with top sociologists, etc.... The most recurring single factor that they offered as responsible for modern social breakdown was children out of wedlock. While it may be neither or both, I love how capitalism gets a black eye despite the fact that America stands alone in what it has accomplished in the modern era economically. Emotion-driven analysis at it's finest.
It doesn't. Ultimately, trying to respond to a crisis situation by not planning for it, is a virtual guarantee the crisis will not be dealt with satisfactorily be it a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a home invasion, a home fire, etc.... So the idea that the absence of data produces a valid basis to argue to the absence of preparation is simply absurd.
In general, Americans (& especially Texans) probably have more individualistic attributes than many/most other national citizens. I like that myself & I suspect most Americans (certainly Texans) do too. Maybe others, predictably, don't appreciate that so much. I think that suits most Americans perfectly, at least one anyhow.
I think that's part of what makes America "American" & wouldn't like to see that sacrificed just to "fit in". No thanks, I'll pass.
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 06-18-2010 at 07:30 AM.
companies can benefit from taking a gamble, they can also act in ways not in their own interst but just in the interest of interest groups within the company (eg management may have an interest in short term profits and be ok with long term losses) amongst other things.Does anyone believe that BP benefits from this?
It is a massive waste of resources if everyone has to do this. As a result not everyone does and when you have a meta charity like givewell they end up slamming many of the charities for being useless.It's why every charity I contribute to, I've met the person(s) receiving the money & seen what it will be used for.
that isnt hte relevant comparison. What matters is if one group has power and you split it into two which is more likely to abuse that power. to take extreme cases compare life in the USA with a government to life in somalia with no government. Yes the somali government is unlikely to abuse power if it doesnt exist - but that helps noone.By definition, the more power something or some entity possesses, the more likely they are to abuse it.
you are stacking the deck. in general you dont have a well-qualified & motivated private group to substitute for the government programme.For every government run program, I'm pretty certain substituting a well-qualified & motivated private group can do a better job in every instance. Governments don't have a monopoly on goodwill, good sense, or good judgement.
Anyway - take for example the relief effort after the chinese earthquake vs the relief effort in New Orleans or to a lesser extent the relief effort after the boxing day tsunami.
Well oranized state relief seems to trump non state based relief not just in human but also in economic capitalist outcomes.
Also considering that a very large proporiton of charity donations go to administration and advertising it is probably vastly more efficient right from the start. you might be able to make up for that in some other way - but you could easily have a 50% handicap right from the beginning.
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-18-2010 at 07:31 AM.
The US has more of a pro marriage movement than most other countries...
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-18-2010 at 07:29 AM.
Actually government spending in the USA took a marked turn upwards with the women's suffrage movement as well but I'm sure no one wants to talk about the intrinsic differences (or lack thereof) between males & females & how that has (or has not) influenced government spending/growth over the last 100+ years.
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 06-18-2010 at 07:53 AM.
germany has no violent history? what about japan? in the english, french and dutch history books you will find lots and lots of horrible things committed by the now egalitarian human rights countries.Originally Posted by Pedal2Metal
america doesn't need to be a violent nation. the extreme differences between the rich and the poor in combination with very lax gun laws produces this violence. the other first world countries could do it as well. canada and australia are immigration countries too and made it. i don't see why america should naturally lack the possibility of creating a non-violent society.
About child-care. You didn't understood what I meant. It's not costing you anything it's giving you money. Allowing mother to work and pay tax. Allowing children from poor neighborhood to have access to food with nutriment, social activity, contact with people talking to them... It's full of positive externality that some researchers have tried to calculate. Same thing for public school. Governement are making investment.
My province must be one of the best example of an efficient way to use the government. 50 years ago all the economic power were concentrated in the hands of the anglophone minority. Then there was the "Refus Global" in the 50" and the provincial income tax, then the "Révolution tranquille" which gave access to education to all. After years, the economic slowly went towards the french (english are still richer, because when you are born rich, you have more chance to stay rich), we could start to create business, have educated people having jobs that pay and we had an economic growth really superior than before the States started to be more present socially and economically.
You must like this "The rising tides lift all boats". Yeah kind of... While duraing the last 2 decades 99% of the poorest American (so everybody but the 1% rich) had an increase of 4% in their buy power (pouvoir d'achat),the 0,1% of 100% and the 0,01 of 400%. It's a big joke.
Company are more efficient. What a old-dated thought... There is more big company than ever. Small company are being bought by big one. These company have stock-option. It's not the same rules that are applied now. It's a bunch of friends sieging in administration council, that know each other and can make the stock option dance as they want. Have you seen the increase in the wealth of Buffet, Gates and company it's crazy, they make more money during the recession than ever. In my province, we were almost not touched by the recession, because compared to most place in North-America governement takes more spaces, so it's less touch by the fluctuation.
Government is happy by what is happening are you kidding me. It's a crisis for the administration right now. BP isn't happy of course. Are they trying to do what is most profitable for the society not at all. Are they trying to stop the leak. No they are trying to reduce at minimum the lost they are going to take. They are trying to get barrel out of it instead of stopping the leak. If there was more governement regulation things like that wouldn't happen. If there wasn't governement regulation there would be an hole in the Ozone and we could all be dead at the moment.
Private sector is more effective??? 17% of your GDP goes to healthcare, compared this to any other country where the health care are taken by the public sector. It's ridiculous. What's the goal of the health care system. Make people live healthy and in good health. Look at the number of that too. You'll see that there is more than the army and the road that the government can be better than the private sector.
Self-interest motive. New ways of management are being put in places. There is incencitive now given to public sector CEO to reduce cost, or increase productivity, it's not only the private sector that has done that. There is lots of economics that are studying that. Lots of interesting articles that you should read before saying the old conservative discourse.
No accountability. Are you kidding? Who votes at the election?
"For every government run program, I'm pretty certain substituting a well-qualified & motivated private group can do a better job in every instance."
That's such a big prejudjudice (???). Education. No firm would want to do that because, there is no pay off in education except if you put education only for the riches. It's only externalities and externalities by definition cannot be taken in account by the private sector. Health care. Are you kidding? The way to reduce health care cost is by having a society in good health. It's normal that there is no incencitive to have a society in good health, because private sector company makes tons of cash in USA on the bad health of the citizen (especially the private health care sector). If its' the governement that owns the hospital and assume the cost attached to it, it will have incencitive to put prevention, because it's a non-profit organization. Don't go cost will raise, read study on that, it's the opposite. Go see what happens with the recent experience in England... The medicaments is a good example also on how it can be bad if the private sector become too powerful. Pills are now reducing symptom not curing things. It's like getting addicted to drugs. They don't cure you, they allow you to live older, only if you keep taking the pills...
Yes they're is people who will abuse the generosity of some public programs, but they're is abuser everywhere and at least they're is more accountability in the governement than in the private-sector.
I don't want the governement to sell me orange or car, but I want it to allow every citizen to have the same chance to success in life if they are willing to work for it.