Teflpedia:Student bar/Archive 3

An unexpected problem
Well, this is a bit rough. Just got a message from my main client cancelling my contract. They'd previously put off negotiations during the end of August, but it seems their HO has just obliged everyone to use one main supplier. Ha well. Have to look for other opportunities.--Bob M 12:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I hope something turns up for you soon. SuspectedReplicant 13:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugger! Toast 13:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Though my previous client is being most helpful. Things are in motion. --Bob M 08:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Spring Day
Spring is sprung! The grass is riz I wonder where My undies is Happy spring day to all Southerners. (That's real southerners, not you namby-pamby lot hovering above the equator.) -- Psy Whut? 17:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

World War Two...
...Britain declared war on Germany 70 years ago today. Just remembered. SuperJosh 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Close. Germany started kicking the stuffing out of Poland today. Britain/France declared war on the 3rd (My dad's birthday... he's 2 minutes older than WW2). -- Psy Whut? 18:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant - the German invasion. My bad. I haven't studied history for a few months now and my skull is beginning to eat the outside of my brain. SuperJosh 16:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Aubrey O'Day
Anyone see her on Hannity last night? He was JAQing off trying to corner her and she flat out told the truth...Hitler was a brilliant man.

Hannity almost crapped himself. It was hilarious. 19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Story and Video. SuspectedReplicant 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great example of revisionism on Hannity's part. He is incapable of acknowledging Castro or Hitler's intelligence. The other funny revisionism thing that happened recently was Glenn Beck saying Obama was running an "Oligarhy [sic]". Yeah... and a bush was in the white house the last 24 out of 32 years or something??? 207.67.17.45 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw video of the "OLIGARHY" thing - and the way he then desperately tried to make a point about "Czars" to make it appear as if he was making a point rather than making a f***-up. You yanks really seem to have much more fun with your TV than we do! SuspectedReplicant 20:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? "O'Day was reminded that Castro is a murder". He is? Why is he still alive then? Crundy 07:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Enron
On More 4 (UK TV) now. Mr Bush was in it up to the neck. Toast 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! that was interesting: Capitalism rules!!! ''(not) Toast 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stumblin'
Dropped on this re a lib v con experiment. among other things: "Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas." Interesting? Toast 02:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which means that conservatives are less likely? Surely that is what defines them as being conservative? Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 06:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Praying for a profit
This caused me a certain amount of schadenfreude. 20,000 metric tonnes of gold? That's double the US reserve and worth $670bn at current prices. Just goes to show who the really gullible ones are. (Sorry to read that someone felt compelled to take their own life because of it though.) Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 10:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

lol WND
an excerpt from this story about right wingers getting fed up with WND. Joseph Farah goes on a masterful defense with this analysis:


 * Last Saturday, the Herald published an article titled, "Secret camps and guillotines? Groups make 'birthers' look sane." In that story, reporter Steven Thomma of McClatchy, a newspaper chain founded on the notion of promoting "public ownership of private property" (and doing its best to fulfill that mission, I might add), alleges "WorldNetDaily.com says that the government is considering Nazi-like concentration camps for dissidents."


 * To back up that complete misrepresentation, Thomma offers this excerpt from a brief news story in WND dating back to Feb. 1 and written by Jerome Corsi, a senior staff writer and two-time No. 1 New York Times best-selling author: "[A] proposal in Congress 'appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.'"


 * Notice the partial quote. What's left out are some key words. Let's look at the full, unexpurgated sentence in Corsi's original story: "The proposed bill, which has received little mainstream media attention, appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany."


 * Corsi's is a much more nuanced and accurate statement – acknowledging the fears of many Americans recently maligned by the Homeland Security Department as "right-wing extremists" and potential terrorists – than the Herald's allegation that Corsi and WND claim "the government is considering Nazi-like concentration camps for dissidents." But perhaps you need to be slightly more literate – or concerned about the truth – than Thomma to see the distinction.

So it's not Corsi claiming that "the government is considering Nazi-like concentration camps for dissidents" because Thomma left out that the WND thinks the mainstream media wasn't covering it? Is it too early to read, or is Joseph Farah just flat-out crazy? 12:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Farah is not completely crazy, he has a history of this. Unless the Republicans win, we are three days away from some crisis that will allow the Democrats to take over the country, lock people in FEMA camps and outlaw Christianity. The reason I say he is not crazy is because I doubt he believes any of that, he just a hyper-partisan who hates the Democrats and peddles this crap for money. Look at the site, it is giant advertisement for books they write and DVDs they produce masquerading as a news site. They sell "end of the world"/"the new world order is coming" crap to people who are afraid their own shadow is a commie. Pi 11:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care
A quick question for the Americans if I may: What is it about a national health service that makes Americans angry? I mean surely if you don't want the terrible free health care then you can just get health insurance and get the premium package? Which is what you have to do at the moment to get any kind of health care? Is this just a case of the rich people saying "I can afford good health care, so f**k the poor"? Crundy 13:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's socialism. Socialism = Communism = Evil. But it seems like your last sentence is quite correct. Armondikov 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still can't quite understand that. most likely as I'm a Brit and I've grown up with free Health Service. I can understand why some yanks might not want to accept welfare payments, as I've just been reading the paper and it seems the way Labour has arranged welfare has destroyed half the country (then again I was reading the Daily Mail and it's a very conservative-biased paper). But to say "no money = go die" is quite disgraceful. SuperJosh 16:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually argued with Americans (who can themselves afford health insurance) who claim that if they were poor they'd happily forgo lifesaving medical treatment for the sake of principle. I don't believe them. --Jeeves 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, because if it's a Christian-religious thing, Christians (and some other religions in general) think of life as sacred and usually do whatever they can to preserve it (unless they're Jehovah's and don't want other people's blood). SuperJosh 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend's father opposes free health care for the poor because his taxes will go up, and he's already struggling to get his four kids (my friends) the money they need to get into college. Pretty much 'just because you fucked up your life doesn't mean my kids should suffer'. I still side with the poor, and I find it hard to believe my friends can't get student loans. Apparently there's a limit on the amount allowed to be loaned per household, or something. - Clepper
 * I can understand where your mate's dad is coming from. It's not always that you necessarily want to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor, just that the tax works it easier on oneself. Like every other issue in the world, it is a controversial one. SuperJosh 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should society be expected to pay for his four kids? If he'd stopped at two, he'd probably be considerably better off. If I were to buy four cars would I expect people with only two cars to help with my car maintenance? It's one thing that annoys me about the NHS: funding IVF for people who want kids. I want a car, where's my funding? Toast 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Education ain't an expense, it's an investment. A country full of incredibly stupid people isn't much of a tax base. University is another thing that doesn't tend to bankrupt people in the UK either. Sure, there are fees now, and loans instead of grants but you're probably not going to run up debts exceeding £20K for a degree, which is less than the average graduate salary per annum. --Jeeves 17:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it more the freedom/libertarian thing. We like to think that they are quite similar to the Brits, Canucks or Antipodeans because they use a similar language and have similar popular culture but there really is a completely different mindset in the USA. You have to understand the anti-communism/socialism attitude is quite deeply embedded in the American psyche even if they don't always know what it really means, they've just been indoctrinated to think it's bad. RobS is a child of McCarthyism, he may be an extreme example but there are many who have been brought up to think along similar lines. So anything that's "socialised" automatically gets a bad rap even from those whom would actually benefit. I hate to upset our transatlantic cousins but to my mind there is actually a deep river of "propaganda" which irrigates American thinking that is almost Big Brother-like in it's mind-control effectiveness. It's not a government thing per se but something that has comes through the wealth-owning classes projecting their values onto the aspirational poor. The idea that anyone can become president is a mantra that is reiterated like winning the lottery but it requires money and a agreement to play the power-game. You may come from humble beginnings but you quickly leave them behind. Unlike Europe there is no large-scale grass-roots socialism movement so although we may like to think that the Democrats are the equivalent of the Labour party they are closer to the left-wing of the Tory party. The US two-party system makes it difficult for other groups to get a foothold, so those with any left of centre leanings end up supporting the Democrats by default. Before Obama got elected I actually thought it would be a bad thing for the Democrats because they were coming in at the wrong stage of the economic cycle. The financial excrement is about to hit the fan and the Democrats will get the blame even though the real culprits are the Republicans. Starting with Nixon who abandoned the gold standard and thereby gave rise to all the later financial excesses of Reagan and the shrubbery. I my opinion Obama is trying to do the right thing but at the wrong time. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, how liberals love to censor and control! -Teh Assfly, 19:55, 2 Septembver 2009AD (UTC)
 * @Toast - I mostly agree with you about IVF. I believe the NHS typically pays for one course of IVF treatment, which I think is fair enough. Some Health Authorities pay for more though, which does piss me off. When you get the couples on the news whining that they've had three free cycles, still haven't got preggers, but demand more for free because "having children is a right"... I'm afraid my only response is "No it isn't". SuspectedReplicant 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My missus had a hysterectomy before I met her so there has never been any question of little Khants running around. So yes it does annoy me as well when people demand multiple IVF treatments on the NHS especially if they've already had kids by previous partners. As far as I'm concerned kids are a lifestyle choice. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "...there is actually a deep river of "propaganda" which irrigates American thinking that is almost Big Brother-like in it's mind-control effectiveness. It's not a government thing per se but something that has comes through the wealth-owning classes projecting their values onto the aspirational poor." That pretty much sums it up. Reagan managed to convinced the "working class" and the poor that government could only mess up their lives more, while also promoting the "I intend to rich one day, so I don't want their taxes raised" silliness (people really do think this). Human 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Genghis - you're right about the significant difference in healthcare and finanical issues between America and Britain - I was actually saying that to PC earlier on Liberapedia. I guess the platform differences between Labour and Democrats, and Tories and Republicans are so because America suffered a whole lot more than Britain from the Reds-under-the-Beds scare - RobS Conservapedia is living proof of this. I gues it didn't affect Britain so badly because we were already starting our welfare state at the beginning of the 20th century. SuperJosh 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like to think these arguments don't sway British people because by and large we know something about history. The things American conservatives want, like an abolition of the welfare state and its responsibilities shouldered by private charities, have all been tried and have been dismal failures at ensuring a reasonable society. Indeed, these things are the very root cause of the communism they claim to so despise, both in Europe's past and in the present of the developing world. You only have to look at the vast base of support for modern Maoism amongst India's underclass to see that. --Jeeves 20:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that people who need help should get it, I also believe the welfare system in general needs reforming in Britain. Like Ace said when he mentioned a while ago about his freakout at some lazy protesting bastard, I believe if you have the ability to work you should - obviously circumstances taken into account. No bloody government handouts, as taking advantage of the welfare system has got our country into the state it is - reading the paper earlier, we're one of the highest places in the western world for binge drinking, smoking, teenage pregnancy. I'll admit I'm guilty of all three the first two, but I think the welfare state has led to lazy unemployed parents letting their kids run around and do whatever they want. SuperJosh 20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, stereotype much there? Margret Thatcher got herself elected on just that platform. You might remember how well her "reforms" worked out. Your lazy stereotyping ignores the much more typical cases, like my friend who wsa unfairly banned from driving when some stupid bint rearended him after he'd had half a pint, and as consequence lost his job as a builder. By and large, the "welfare queens" of popular legend don't exist. --Jeeves 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(O/D - getting way too deep) My dad was a Liberal (ie, pre-Lib Dem) councillor back in the day. He spent a huge amount of time helping out two families in my hometown that seemed to spend their entire time ****ing each other and spitting out new kids. I was in the same class at school with two of them. At the age of 9, they knew that they were "due" a new council house because of the number of people in the one they had.

While I would love to agree with Jeeves that "welfare queens" don't exist, I'm afraid they do. It still doesn't mean that welfare is a bad idea though. SuspectedReplicant 20:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about it to get into a proper debate, but the reform I'm talking about is to deal with those who SuspectedReplicant mentioned - if people are in perfectly good health but do not work when they're able, then they shouldn't live on handouts. There's nothing Thatcherite about it - simply stop work-shy freeloaders (as you know Jeeves, Mark once said to Jez!)SuperJosh 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just add something to the whole IVF debate? Considering that there are thousands of orphan / abandoned babies throughout the whole world who need a good home, I find it extremely selfish of couples to start demanding exceptionally expensive treatments to have children who have their DNA. If you can't have kids and want some, do something good and give that love to someone who hasn't had any so far. Crundy 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're totally ignoring all the reasons why an able bodied person, even one who has been offered work, might perfectly legitimately choose not to. Single mothers, especially single mothers of large broods and who are only able to obtain low paid work, will often find that childcare expenses exceed their earning potential. It's completely irresponsible to label these people "freeloaders." There is no point punishing these people by taking away their benefits. That's just masking the symptoms, plus inflicting unjust child poverty. You need to address the root causes of family breakdown and poor family planning if you want to tackle the problem. --Jeeves 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I live in south London. Some people round here will work as long and as hard as it takes to earn as much as they need to get the best for their kids. Some will sit on their asses and then shout "Well! We're entitled!!!" when they don't get exactly what they want. Most are in the middle ground. It all comes down to: do you penalize the children of group b because of the actions of their parents? SuspectedReplicant 21:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is straying into a different topic. Sex education in the UK does a pretty poor job at preventing teenage pregnancies but there are those young girls (and it also applies to the US - see Freakanomics) who have no aspirations other than to be mothers. Some of it is a vicious spiral but in the long term it boils down to providing a decent education system, good role models and incentives not to sponge on the state. Although some politicians on the right have placed the blame on single mothers I think that this report today indicates that teenage boys are just as culpable. Unfortunately red-top tabloids and lads mags do not encourage a respectful relationship between the sexes. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 21:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting back on topic - I've heard it suggested that the US government pays more on a per capita basis for health care for its citizens than european countries do, but as a large proportion of this payment disappears into the medical companies profits the result is worse. Is there any truth is this?--Bob M 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, absolutely true. The US government spends $500 more per capita providing non-universal healthcare than the UK spends providing universal care. Medical outcomes wise, there's precious little to choose between the systems for most comparable diagnoses. However, I suspect if you compared outcomes for medicaid/medicare patients vs. the NHS, the NHS would win hands down. Sadly, that isn't tracked in any useful sense. I don't know where the money goes in the US, but it certainly isn't to provide superior care. With private health care included, per capita health spend in the US is more than $3000 higher than the UK. (Oh yeah, and to add insult to injury, medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US compared. In the UK, bankruptcy due to medical expenses is more or less unknown.) --Jeeves 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While nationalised services like the NHS may not be 100% efficient they don't pay dividends to their share holders, they pay lower salaries and also pay less for drugs because of bulk buying. I used to get BUPA insurance through my agency and paid extra for my wife - about £450 per year. When that stopped, because of IR30 rules, I looked at buying private health insurance out of my own pocket and was facing a bill of almost £2000 a year for myself and the same again for my wife. Of course that would be subject to limits so when people say that private is better in the UK, I ask whether they are part of a company scheme or pay directly out of their own pocket. When my wife had her stem cell transplant and was in an isolation room (on the NHS) she even got free phone calls thanks to the Friends of the Hospital (obviously one was aware of the fact and was expected not to abuse the privilege). Recently I had some dental surgery at a private hospital and while the conditions were very pleasant it did cost me a considerable sum. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 22:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above stats, the "non-universal" system in the US leaves 1/6 of the population with no "health insurance". And those bankrupties?  Many of those people had health insurance, and either got kicked out or still had to saddle far more than they could afford of the costs.  Yeah, the US "system" is a travesty.  2k quid a year for a plan?  That's like, less than $200 a month, right?  That's what the last plan I had cost ($300/mo) before I gave up - 12-15 years ago. Human 01:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you lived a few score miles to the south, in Taxachusetts, without coverage, you would be paying the "breathing tax" along with all the others. Come tax time, if you can't prove you had an insurance plan in place, the state charges you an equivalent penalty. Next thing you know, we will have to buy walking licenses to cross the street. 66.189.117.133 01:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, is having children a right or a privilege? Once Rationalwiki comes back it might make an interesting debate. Two perfectly rational agents should never disagree and what not. - Clepper
 * At BON, MA is doing the best they can given a totally disastrous general situation. They are trying to make sure all residents have access to health care.  Is it a good system?  No, not really.  Mostly because they can't utilize the constitutional powers of the federal government to tax the obscenely rich to pay for basic services. Human 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Twas ever thus. The very wealthy have the means to influence the kleptocrats in office, as do the various insurance entities responsible for the high overhead associated with delivering the care. Not totally responsible of course, since there are systemic factors (oh, say, capitalism?) that encourage the high cost/performance ratio we get. I'm not sure how the recently fashionable strident polarization of US civic discourse plays into it; cause, effect, or simple inconvenient fact? 66.189.117.133 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)