Re: Compulsory HS
Kevin Tarr wrote: Plus, I still don't know about HS level sports in other countries Very little in State Schools in Australia. The elite private schools in the capital cities compete against each other in a series of sports, such as rugby, cricket, soccer, sailing, swimming and rowing. It's called GPS, which stands for Greater Private Schools, and is the feeder for state competitions in much the same way as the US. Cheers Russell C. (Brisbane Grammar School) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Mudfoot chants again.
I know this for a fact, and it isn't any rumor: Dol Hasa Roch never had nor has a sense of humor. He wants to keep your servants both docile and compliant, By making any Rousit with a smile declared defiant. It ain't too late--go reprobate. Sing out a Loony Tune. Or a hundred thousand years from now we'll have..another Hoon Dol Hasa hasta hassle he who has a healthy mind. Well, To Hell and back with itchysac! for Hasa and his kind! ---Mudfoot ---poem surreptitiously inserted into Anglic/Hoon translation strip above the stage for display during the performance of The Mikado. William Taylor Provocateur by proxy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Compulsory HS
--- Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Plus, I still don't know about HS level sports in other countries Very little in State Schools in Australia. The elite private schools in the capital cities compete against each other in a series of sports, such as rugby, cricket, soccer, sailing, swimming and rowing. It's called GPS, which stands for Greater Private Schools, and is the feeder for state competitions in much the same way as the US. In some schools in Cali you can take action sports such as Surfing, Skateing/aggressive inline, and Snowboarding. I wish we had these sports when I was in High School. The naming is all backwards. If the name ends in Ball you won't _have_ one. If the name ends in Board, then you won't _be_. It works for any sport. If it ends in ball then the game sucks. RacketBALL? Boaring. Squash, Badmitten, Tennis, All fun fun fun. FootBALL (Socker)? wake me up when the moms start serving oranges. Hockey? Fast action. BaseBALL? Long drawn out excuse to drink bear, eat penuts, and study statistics. Cricket? Well If your going to do the long and drawn our thing, then you might as well do it right. FootBALL (American)? Are they going to play the damb game, or just keep getting in the little line? They keep stoping to go ask the geezer on the sideline what they should do next. You would think they don't even know the rules. Rugby? Real acation. BasketBALL? Watch the last 2 minutes, if one team is more than 10 points ahead the game is over, if not, it might be interesting to see which team is better at timeing it so that they have the ball right before the buzzer. Lacross (Native Rules)? Can you have more fun? No buzzer, not time limmit, you either give up or you play untill you can no-longer score. But we've coverd that before. It's probably a bore. I've said it once, now I've said it again, I won't say it any more. You can't walk out cuz there's no door. But you don't have to be sore. Just stop your reading, and your complaining, I know my ryming skils are poor. 87P = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
frist strikes back: religious nut wants constitutional ban on gaymarriage
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-29-frist-gay-marriage_x.ht m Frist backs constitutional ban on gay marriage WASHINGTON (AP) The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states. I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned, Frist told ABC's This Week. And I'm thinking of whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern. Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: I absolutely do, of course I do. I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment. Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled. As drafted, the proposal says: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states. Frist said Sunday he respects the Supreme Court decision but feels the justices overstepped their bounds. Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures, Frist said. That's where those decisions with the local norms, the local mores are being able to have their input in reflected. And that's where it should be decided, and not in the courts. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Strine
Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have any of youse septic blokes or shielas come across instances of ridgy didge use of strine? http://minirich.twoday.net/stories/8088/ BUGGER! Strine -- Australian slang -- is invading American speech...snip..terms such as no worries, agro (aggravated), walkabout and crikey (exclamation of surprise) are being heard in the States more frequently. grin I think you can credit Crocodile Hunter for the sudden jump in crikey! Stateside, as in: Crikey! This snake is mad now! Don't try this at home, kids! copperhead writhing wildly in his hands, head darting at his bare legs... I must admit the first time I heard of Crocodile Hunter was while travelling overseas. Not being a big TV watcher, I may be wrong, but he appeared to make it big overseas before he became famous here. Pops up all over the place now in ads etc. He does seem to be genuinely interested in conservation. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
I'm not quite sure what you mean -- if you mean that having more children after 1 boy and 1 girl doesn't increase your costs, you're wrong. Talk to someone with 2 kids about their grocery bill for a week, and then talk to someone with 4 kids about their grocery bill. Shoes don't last forever to be handed down. If you have more kids, you need a bigger (and probably more expensive) vehicle to get them around in. Gone are the days when you could pile 4 kids in elementary school into the back of a VW Bug (and those were fun, weren't they? at least, as long as you didn't become a statistic). If you're just talking about shelter costs, it can still be tight. Say you have a 3-bedroom house and 4 kids. If you've got 4 of one gender, or 2 and 2, room-sharing isn't that big a deal, but if it's a 1 and 3 gender split, you may have a problem. I know housing is expensive in NYC. Having 3 kids to house in NYC isn't terribly easy, at least that's the impression I've gotten from conversations with Dan's cousin and his wife who live in NYC and who have 3 kids. If it's anything like that in Europe, I can see how smaller family size could result. Julia As I implied, it was time for bed for me. I meant it as it related to Russell's comment. I didn't mean to say there were no costs above 2 kids, of course you have to feed them and clothe them. But if he was talking cities, in Europe, I didn't see the need for personal transportation. And there is some limit where x kids in a room is too many, but people have been doing it for years, heck centuries, before now. Kevin T. = VRWC Not arguing, just the fog of morning ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Gautam Mukunda wrote (about birth rates): I think that probably has something to do with it. My best guess, though, is that the main reason is that the US is just so much wealthier than other countries, even other industrialized countries. It's just incredibly expensive to have kids in a modern industrialized society. You can almost track birthrates to how expensive it is - except in the US, which has much less in the way of pro-family government policies to subsidize the cost, yet it still has a birthrate of about 2.0. My best guess is that Americans are sufficiently wealthier than people in other societies that they can afford to have more kids. That's just a guess. An easy test of this theory: Do rich Americans on average have more children than the battlers? I would be astounded. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On 29 Jun 2003 at 17:33, Gautam Mukunda wrote: All of this excluding England, of course, which _has_ fixed its pension problem, and at least has healthier demographics than the rest of Europe, if not as good as the US. Umm? No, we have NOT. Germany has, by offloading it entirely onto individuals, essentially forcing them to pay as they work for their retirement. It did that some time ago, and looks to be okay. The UK, on the other hand, has an large mass of older people about to reach retirement age who do NOT have sufficient - or any - retirement cover. They are *seriously* talking about raising the retirement age because of that, in the near-term. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Compulsory HS
At 08:36 PM 6/29/2003 -0700, you wrote: --- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I didn't catch how much these countries spent on education, I doubt it is more than the US. And they seem to have better results. I don't really buy this, for two main reasons. The first is that Americans have been complaining that their school systems lag the world since Sputnik, yet over that span of time the American dominance of the world in economics generally, and science and technology in particular, has been essentially total. If American schools were that bad, you'd think it would have shown up by now. Second, American _universities_ are acknowledged by everyone as the class of the world, to the extent that a top-tier American school's only real competitors are other American schools. A large part of that is due to funding and competition, but still, it seems difficult or impossible to have an elite university system and an atrocious public school system. Kevin T. - VRWC Plus, I still don't know about HS level sports in other countries Almost entirely non-existent, I believe. At least in most of Europe sports are organized through clubs, not schools. There's a lot to be said for that system - it means that school isn't such an all-consuming part of the life of most kids. If they don't have a social outlet in school, they can find one somewhere else. Gautam Mukunda Hasn't there been study after study that shows the more education a child receives in this country, the farther behind he gets compared to Europe or Japan? Now one problem is we have all our kids lumped together, where if what I said is true, they are only measuring their academic track students against all of ours. In the back of my head I knew that our universities were better than theirs. I couldn't think of a reason. Is it more endowments, the sheer number of schools, better processes since our schools are newer, more innovations? How do you rate a quality education? If I had a comp-sci degree from little Lock Haven University, is it worth less than one from U of Illinois, or MIT? How about comparing our schools to theirs. Is Oxford the best university in the world? Do we have ten that are better? Do we have another thirty that are better than Europe's second best? Kevin T. - VRWC See you Tuesday ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Heterophobia in the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3031332.stm Gay and lesbian couples will be awarded the same legal rights as married couples under plans outlined by the government. These will include pension and property entitlements if couples register their commitment in a civil ceremony. The moves will give next-of-kin rights in hospitals, allow gays to benefit from a dead partner's pension and exempt them from inheritance tax on a partner's home. However, the changes have been criticised by human rights campaigners who complain that heterosexual non-married couples are discriminated against. Under the plans, gay couples will not be entitled to a marriage ceremony, but will be able to sign an official document at a register office in front of the registrar and two witnesses. Heterosexual couples will not be eligible for the registration scheme, a decision attacked by veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Mr Tatchell said: It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples, he said. Cohabiting heterosexuals also lack legal recognition and protection. This is a grave injustice. He added: It is a pity the government has opted for an unimaginative, watered down version of marriage, instead of having the foresight to devise an entirely new, modern legal framework for partnership recognition. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
I'll admit it was a rather terse comment fueled mostly by being totally sick of the subject. It appears you interpret all critical comments as insults. No, the comment was not critical. A critical comment would be constructive. Your comment, however, only served one purpose - to demean people of faith. As there was nothing in that comment implying that I am an atheist, Your comment that religion is a crutch quickly placed you in the company of atheists and atheist-leaning agnostics. I suppose that it is possible, though in my assessment - unlikely -, that you are a non-religious spiritualist... but as you said, you don't normally participate in these discussions, so I can't say for sure. If so, please accept my apology. Still, I stand by my previous point that there is a group of Brin-L'ers who have a distinct hostility to religion, and are in large part atheist. Moreover, these people have demonstrated a complete inability to discuss the topic of religion civilly, and instead only post various zingers and insults on this topic, without providing any constructive comment or examination of other viewpoints. In my mind, the collective sum of these actions from multiple posters are working directly contrary to the formation of the kind of Community that the majority of Brin-L wants this List to be. Lastly, it should be noted that zingers and insults in posts otherwise devoid of meaningful comment, from religious Brin-L'ers against atheist and non-religious Brin-Lers, is virtually unheard of here - which I find curious, to say the least. Its not like anyone has tried to make atheists feel unwelcome here the way some people have tried to make the religious feel unwelcome here. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
On 30 Jun 2003 at 11:55, William T Goodall wrote: The moves will give next-of-kin rights in hospitals That alone leads me to back it. The current situation is farsical, and very nearly got a friend of mine killed (let's just say that her parents were NOT her legal next-of-kin) Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. Which it won't. As advances in medicine make people more able-bodied older, *and* as evidence accumulates that on-going activity can help prevent Alzheimer's, I think we will see people working longer and longer. Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Retirement Crisis Re: Comparision of economic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GS study says there will only be 2.3 workers for every person 65 and over in 2050. If people retire at 65, there will be a lot more people selling than buying in 2050 as compared to now. I presume that you are referring to stocks. If you are looking at the stock market in isolation, the effect of what you describe should only change the nominal price level of stocks, not the actual price level. This is what I referred to before when I noted that monetary policy can be used to counteract the shifts brough about by this demand shock. Moreover, all that money being withdrawn from the stock market is now going to go towards consumption. That effect, at least, is arguable beneficial for business, as it would produce a positive demand shock for their products. The real problem is if that generation (keeping in mind that this is a 20-year generation, retiring across a span of 10+ years each, so it is not a sudden effect) doesn't have enough money to withdraw from asset markets to fuel consumption, and that money has to come from somewhere else. Well, o.k., we already know that they won't have enough - but how much *not enough* it is will have the biggest impact, since it will reduce the consumption (and ironically, the retirement savings) of the working generation at that time, in favor of boosting the consumption of the retired generation. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
iaamoac wrote: Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. The implication being that those who have saved should be penalised for their thrift? As a general principle I agree with your comment (means testing) but for two people with similar earnings and circumstances, it seems unfair to disadvantage the frugal one. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
John said: JDG - You atheists are really doing yourselves proud here. Hey, can I be one of the Intolerant Atheists too? It looks like such fun! ;) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
However, the changes have been criticised by human rights campaigners who complain that heterosexual non-married couples are discriminated against. Heterosexual couples will not be eligible for the registration scheme, a decision attacked by veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Mr Tatchell said: It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples, he said. Why? They can get legally married! I understand his point is that gay couples should also be permitted - which I agree with - but there's no discrimination against unmarried straight couples. Tom Beck ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 02:34 pm, Ray Ludenia wrote: iaamoac wrote: Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. The implication being that those who have saved should be penalised for their thrift? As a general principle I agree with your comment (means testing) but for two people with similar earnings and circumstances, it seems unfair to disadvantage the frugal one. Regards, Ray. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/cash/story/0,6903,930367,00.html The latest twist on our social security pension system is the 'savings credit' where people with low incomes who have saved for their retirement get an *extra* top-up from the government to reward them compared to those who have not saved who receive only the minimum guarantee credit. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life - Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Compulsory HS
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really buy this, for two main reasons. The first is that Americans have been complaining that their school systems lag the world since Sputnik, yet over that span of time the American dominance of the world in economics generally, and science and technology in particular, has been essentially total. If American schools were that bad, you'd think it would have shown up by now. Second, American _universities_ are acknowledged by everyone as the class of the world, to the extent that a top-tier American school's only real competitors are other American schools. A large part of that is due to funding and competition, but still, it seems difficult or impossible to have an elite university system and an atrocious public school system. In the back of my head I knew that our universities were better than theirs. I couldn't think of a reason. Is it more endowments, the sheer number of schools, better processes since our schools are newer, more innovations? How do you rate a quality education? If I had a comp-sci degree from little Lock Haven University, is it worth less than one from U of Illinois, or MIT? How about comparing our schools to theirs. Is Oxford the best university in the world? Do we have ten that are better? Do we have another thirty that are better than Europe's second best? Well, I know that from my own experience when I got to Uni the forign students mostly all had it much easier than I did. They already knew much higher math than I did, tested out of much of the classes I took for the first 2 years, they all spoke 2 languages and could test out of the forign language requirment. And these people were all the ones who didn't make their O levels enough to be admitted to Uni back in their COO. That said, when I got into conversations with them about the topics they tested out of, it was clear that they did not have a very deep understanding. They knew the patterns or had memorized the factoids, but did not have a good understanding of the topic. But this didn't matter much becouse their was always a prof they could take who's tests didn't ask for creative thought, only regergitation. It was noticed seveal times that almost all of the forign students avoided the hard teachers. Maybe my view is skued though. I allways took the hard teaches in hindsight perhaps becouse they were less likely to give multiple choice -factoid- tests, and also less likely to care about spelling. They also tended to teach things in class that were not in the text, so if you were not in class and paying attention you wour grade would suffer. Since I am dyslexic that made a bit difference. Especialy learning through lecture. At the time I just though the classes were more interesting. In any event it would be good to do a study based on this, but then, people would probably just find it raceist. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
-Original Message- From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:19 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! Its amazing that so many messages have been devoted to dissecting what [EMAIL PROTECTED] precisely meant by this insult. Of course, there's only one thing you need to know about this comment - the count of Brin-L atheists who are unable to discuss religion with a modicum of basic civillity has now reached at least four. JDG - You atheists are really doing yourselves proud here. Allright, I take offense to this. I have not seen any criticism of anything I have posted in the last two weeks, and I have tackled the subject hard. If anything, I have been criticized for being too moderate in my discussion by other atheists. I have written about my own personal discovery into why people are religious, and have publicly apologized if I had offended anyone with what I had posted. If you are going to make a list, please allow those who are being accused of being uncivil in this matter to face their accuser by actually listing the names. BTW - How much is a modicum (in Metric please)? Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 10:01:11PM +0530, Ritu wrote: Not without some effort on your part, Mr. Baker. Say something scathing, snide, nasty, intolerant... You have to have your fun before claiming the badge, I'm afraid. Oh, shut up, you religious ninny! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
The Oregonian on Sunday published a great article about this subject. It was mentioned in the article that education played the biggest role in whether or not people had children, particularly in Europe. The premise being that children interfered with professional development. This model of Education being the principal factor would also hold through to undeveloped countries, contrary to JDG's proposal that religion is a catalyst for having children in developed countries. JDG's proposal does not fit with Asian growth rates, where at least 50% of the world's population is now, and will be at in the future. Women in less developed countries are having 3.6 children ave. This trend is expected to stay through 2050. While the biggest growth rates will be in South America, which has a lot of Catholics, the majority of the population will be in Asia, which has few Christians comparatively. Does anyone know the position of non-Christian religions on promoting having children? Is it as strong in other religions as it is in most Christian religions? Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
At 10:24 AM 6/30/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, the changes have been criticised by human rights campaigners who complain that heterosexual non-married couples are discriminated against. Heterosexual couples will not be eligible for the registration scheme, a decision attacked by veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Mr Tatchell said: It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples, he said. Why? They can get legally married! To modify an old saying: Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
To modify an old saying: Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free? I'm afraid I don't see your point. The complaint is that the UK government will, rather than permit actual legal same-sex marriage, permit gay couples certain privileges similar to marriage but without the formal name, which some gay spokesperson says discriminates against unmarried straight couples by not permitting them a similar legal arrangement in some way short of actual marriage. And my point is, unmarried straight couples have no such need because they can actually get married. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but at least they have the choice, which gays do not. Therefore, there is no possible discrimination. If you want to argue that gays should be given full legal marriage rights, I agree. What the UK government is proposing is, actually, still, discrimination against _gays_ not against straights, even if it would be slightly less discriminatory than it used to be. So what is your point? Tom Beck ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. Which it won't. As advances in medicine make people more able-bodied older, *and* as evidence accumulates that on-going activity can help prevent Alzheimer's, I think we will see people working longer and longer. Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. I'm all for that. And we're doing our darnedest to save enough so that we don't need dime one of Social Security. Basically, if something more drastic than what is currently planned isn't done, the system will collapse. And we'll pay our taxes now and try to save enough to retire on without the help of anyone else, so as to NOT contribute to the problem. (We think we're being realists on this.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
Steve Sloan II wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: 28 days after the release of the virus, London is a virtual ghost-town by day. Alberto Monteiro wrote: Sounds like _Lifeforce_ without Mathilda May. Bah Or that Richard Matheson novel that got made into The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price, Omega Man with Charlton Heston, and yet another planned remake I've heard plans for... ;-) How about Quiet Earth? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
But of course the BBC managed to find a straight couple to illustrate the issue: they have a child and live together and think the new law is a good thing; but they would like to be able to take advantage of it themselves since they don't want to get married. Why should straight people be forced to marry against their wishes to obtain legal rights and tax advantages that gay couples can obtain without having to get married? Gay couples are NOT PERMITTED to get married even if they wanted to. Let gays get legally married - and call it marriage - and then you might have a point. Straight couples at least CAN get married. If they choose not to, that's their decision. But gays who want to get married are prohibited. And why should unmarried couples get any of these rights and privileges? Marriage promotes stability, which is good for children, therefore good for society. If they want those rights and privileges, let them get married, since they, at least, are permitted to do so. Tom Beck ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
At 01:58 PM 6/30/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To modify an old saying: Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free? I'm afraid I don't see your point. The complaint is that the UK government will, rather than permit actual legal same-sex marriage, permit gay couples certain privileges similar to marriage but without the formal name, which some gay spokesperson says discriminates against unmarried straight couples by not permitting them a similar legal arrangement in some way short of actual marriage. And my point is, unmarried straight couples have no such need because they can actually get married. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but at least they have the choice, which gays do not. Therefore, there is no possible discrimination. If you want to argue that gays should be given full legal marriage rights, I agree. What the UK government is proposing is, actually, still, discrimination against _gays_ not against straights, even if it would be slightly less discriminatory than it used to be. So what is your point? Tom A heterosexual couple who is simply cohabiting, frex, can break up and go their separate ways at any time, whereas if they are legally married, they must go through the often messy process of obtaining a legal divorce, dividing up the property, etc. OTOH, because they are not married, frex, if one becomes ill the other is not considered family for visiting and decision-making purposes. I don't know exactly how the proposed law is written, but is it possible it would give them all the advantages of being married without some of the disadvantages, such as long-term commitment? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 06:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To modify an old saying: Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free? I'm afraid I don't see your point. The complaint is that the UK government will, rather than permit actual legal same-sex marriage, permit gay couples certain privileges similar to marriage but without the formal name, which some gay spokesperson says discriminates against unmarried straight couples by not permitting them a similar legal arrangement in some way short of actual marriage. And my point is, unmarried straight couples have no such need because they can actually get married. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but at least they have the choice, which gays do not. Therefore, there is no possible discrimination. If you want to argue that gays should be given full legal marriage rights, I agree. What the UK government is proposing is, actually, still, discrimination against _gays_ not against straights, even if it would be slightly less discriminatory than it used to be. So what is your point? At 02:56 PM 6/30/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why should unmarried couples get any of these rights and privileges? Marriage promotes stability, which is good for children, therefore good for society. If they want those rights and privileges, let them get married, since they, at least, are permitted to do so. As you have perhaps seen by now in another post, that is exactly what I was saying. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
Julia wrote: Steve Sloan II wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Or that Richard Matheson novel that got made into The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price, Omega Man with Charlton Heston, and yet another planned remake I've heard plans for... ;-) How about Quiet Earth? Dude! My absolute favorite LMoE movie. Absolutely stunning, I think. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the blog. Love the blog. http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: Julia wrote: Steve Sloan II wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Or that Richard Matheson novel that got made into The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price, Omega Man with Charlton Heston, and yet another planned remake I've heard plans for... ;-) How about Quiet Earth? Dude! My absolute favorite LMoE movie. Absolutely stunning, I think. But *not* great as the top of a triple feature movie night (video rentals) where the other two movies are The Road Warrior and The Wall. I ought to watch it by itself sometime. Julia who likes the idea of a triple feature where the movies are, in order, Spinal Tap, Blues Brothers and Animal House ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Retirement Crisis Re: Comparision of economic growth
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 01:11:47PM -, iaamoac wrote: If you are looking at the stock market in isolation, the effect of what you describe should only change the nominal price level of stocks, not the actual price level. Why do you say that? In isolation, it should definitely affect the real price level. If you are stranded on an island using gold as your medium of exchange (i.e., real and nominal prices are identical), and one guy sells cans of soup he managed to salvage for 2 ounces of gold per can, and then another guy washes ashore with cases of soup cans to sell, then the price of a soup can will go down to, say, 1 ounce of gold per can. This is a REAL decrease. Now if you look at a floating currency, when supply increases with constant demand, the REAL price will decrease, as will the nominal price. This must be the case, since increased supply is a *real* effect. This is what I referred to before when I noted that monetary policy can be used to counteract the shifts brough about by this demand shock. While monetary policy can create a temporary surge in demand, I don't see how it can create long-term demand out of the blue. Maybe monetary policy could prop up demand for a year or two, but I don't think it can possibly counteract the large, long-term trends we are talking about. You can moderate the speed of your car up and down hills by using the gas pedal and the brake, but you are never going to get your Geo Metro up to 175mph nor will it run on an empty gas tank if you push the accelerator harder. Moreover, all that money being withdrawn from the stock market is now going to go towards consumption. That effect, at least, is arguable beneficial for business, as it would produce a positive demand shock for their products. But it is unlikely that aggregate consumption will go up, since the consumption of the boomers was already included in the economy, except previously it was funded with wages. Most retired people will keep constant or decrease their consumption from what it was in their working years, but now it must be funded by selling their savings. So, overall, consumption will go down as people retire. As a result, we are looking at, simultaneously: reduced GDP due to fewer workers (unless EVERYONE delays retirement or productivity of the remaining workers grows incredibly quickly), reduced consumption (leading to lower corporate earnings), and increased supply of capital/equities (leading to lower multiples on stocks). The stock market will be hit by a double whammy: lower earnings AND lower multiples. The only missing ingredient for a depression is high unemployment -- which may or may not occur (I think that one is hard to predict, but with earnings decreasing, I suspect corporations will try to cut costs by laying people off and looking for cheaper labor overseas). -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
Erik Reuter wrote: Not without some effort on your part, Mr. Baker. Say something scathing, snide, nasty, intolerant... You have to have your fun before claiming the badge, I'm afraid. Oh, shut up, you religious ninny! Hmm, that's close but not quite good enough. Not to be overly critical, but you really need to be more abrasive and offensive. 'Shut up' is just too direct to be nasty enough. Besides, it is not a phrase that has much effect in the middle of an argument. 'Religious' would hardly be taken as an insult by people who believe in God. Is there an English equivalent of 'kattarpanthi' - somebody who is foolishly, bitterly bound to the rituals/portions of the text? 'Ninny' is certainly a fighting word...but that just makes it one word out of six. Not efficient enough, I'm afraid. Ritu GCU Attempt Again, If You Wish GSV Standards, People! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Tytlal are grist for the Mill
John Stewart Mill had the idea that in an election, the votes of educated people should be weighted more heavily than those of the masses. This is the basis of all tytlal philosophy. Their Give a damn system. They too believe in an oligarchy. But unlike most human philosophers, the Tytlal believe that for every Oli, there should also be a Stan Laurel. William Taylor - And the last prime number before one reaches infinity is nothing more than another finite myth. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
