Yes, it is actually that simple. If, as you stated, it was being left to the next president, the withdrawal should not have been included in the agreement.
You are absolutely mistaken. Bush 2 negotiated the withdrawal of the combat troops that he had put into Iraq, essentially an occupational force. The withdraw was on the next President's watch. What was left to that next President to negotiate was a deal for non-combat non-occupational troops. Advisors, instructors, anti-terrorist units, liaisons for Iraqi combat units (i.e. links to US air support), stabilization forces (ex Korean DMZ), etc. An important distinction being that this residual force would be functioning in a fully sovereign and fully independent state.
Your understanding of what the Obama administration wanted to do is also false. They negotiated with the Iraqi government to leave troops behind. The Iraqi government said no.
The negotiation was a farce. Obama wanted all out at any cost, he did not want a successful negotiation and acted accordingly. Taking the no immunity position as final, not something to be negotiated away as was done in the past.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true.
Nothing you wrote backs up that assertion. The Obama administration requested US troops be allowed to stay in Iraq after the negotiated deadline. The Iraqi government said no. Yes, the two governments negotiated, and you have your belief about how that went, but that's your belief. I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Actually you ignore some facts. Fact 1. No immunity was a deal breaker. Fact 2. No immunity was an opening position in past deals and was negotiated away.
By the time Bush II invaded Iraq, the old ones had pretty much rusted out.
The problem was that Saddam was actively creating the impression that Iraq did maintain them and had new weapons programs. It was a disinformation campaign to keep the Iranians guessing for the most part, to maintain the illusion of being a regional power.
No one really knew whether or not Iraq had WMD until US boots were on the ground going into areas UN inspectors were never allowed. Those who had the no-WMD position before the invasion were just as in the dark as those who had the opposite position, it merely turned out the no-WMD crowd was accidentally correct.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true. Things like a lack of immunity for US troops were used as an excuse to leave. The Iraqis opened with such a position in past negotiations and gave in once sufficient money and resources were added to the deal. Its a negotiating tactic. The problem is the new administration did not want a deal, they wanted all out at any cost, so this initial position became a convenient impediment to a deal.
The primary example the GP used to illustrate the point, though, was incorrect. The reason US troops were pulled out of Iraq when they were was because the Bush administration's agreement with the Iraqi government.
Its not that simple. Since the departure of the occupational forces was occurring under the next President's watch it was left to the next President to negotiate a residual force for ongoing stabilization and support of the new Iraqi government. Unfortunately that next President was not interested in leaving such a residual force behind, he wanted all out at any cost.
Your comment about President Clinton is true, but, isn't really relevant. It wasn't about invading Iraq, it was about supporting opposition groups in Iraq.
Apparently Hillary Clinton thought invasion was a valid option for regime change when it came time for her to vote in the Senate.
Silly...Bush 2 started the 2nd Iraq war which destabilized it all. Had he not done that, there would be no ISIS in Iraq.
And if you want to blame someone over the original destabilization and insurgency that helped the original proto-ISIS / al-Quaeda in Iraq get started you really need to blame Paul Bremer. The career diplomat who was in charge of the Provisional Authority that originally governed Iraq. He disbanded the Iraqi Army on his own, without White House or Pentagon approval. So he is primarily responsible for US troops patrolling Iraqi streets and searching Iraqi homes. In past US wars and US occupations the US military removed high ranking officers of the enemy military and had some of its middle and junior ranking officers repot to US officers and these former enemy military officers and their enlisted men did patrols or searches on their own or jointly with the US. But Bremer f'd up such a plan and put disgruntled ex-army on the streets and out of work.
Want an example of how the US military normally handles such things when they are given the choice? After the surrender of German forces in his zone Major Richard Winters (of Band of Brothers fame) ordered the German commander to have his men collect all weapons in town and despot them at the town hall. German troops went from building to building, home to home, collecting weapons. A couple days later Winters went to town hall to inspect the weapons. He found that the German troops had collected every weapon, not just military, but civilian too. Hunting rifles and shotguns, antiques, etc. He told the German commander that he had only wanted the military weapons collected and ordered that the civilian arms should be turned over to the major's office and that civilians could come in and collect their property.
Also some patrols in the area were joint patrols. A couple of German troops would accompany a patrol and these German's would generally handle the stopping of vehicles and interacting with drivers, etc.
Things would have probably gone very differently had the junior officers and enlisted men of the Iraqi army been retained and employed for policing Iraqi's streets, under US supervision. As was done in Germany and Japan and in some areas liberated from Japan. The US used surrendered Japanese troops reporting to US officers to maintain the peace until local authorities could put together their own government and police forces.
Silly...Bush 2 started the 2nd Iraq war which destabilized it all. Had he not done that, there would be no ISIS in Iraq.
Bush 2 defeated proto-ISIS (al-Quaeda in Iraq) with US troops and Sunni tribal fighters in the An Bar Awakening. Proto-ISIS sent word to al-Quaeda leadership to stop sending fighters, that the battle was lost.
Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq. The departure of Occupational/Stabilization forces was negotiated under Bush 2 but since it would be occurring on the next President's watch it was left to that next President to negotiate any residual force that would be left. Obama had no interest in doing so. When the Iraqis said no immunity for US troops Obama used that as an excuse to bail. The fact is the Iraqis *always* open negotiations with that position and then they *always* drop it when the US adds enough money and resources to the deal. Its a negotiating tactic, but Obama didn't want a successful negotiation.
If a residual force had been left behind they would not even have had to engage ISIS directly on the ground. Such a force would have access to air support and could have called in air strikes on ISIS convoys of pickup trucks with heavy weapons traveling down open desert highways. You can't really find a scenario more vulnerable to air power, see Highway of Death from the first Gulf War. So what ISIS personnel survived would have lacked heavy weapons and would have been far more easily handled by local Iraqi forces. Not to mention with US backing these same Iraqi tribal forces beat ISIS the first time around. Its only because of US abandonment and abandonment by Baghdad too did these tribal forces decide to flip and join rather than fight.
The circumstances that led to the resurrection of ISIS is entirely Obama's doing, not Bush 2's. At least for the US' share of the blame, Baghdad's treatment of the Sunnis is responsible for a share too. Of course with greater US involvement such things had been mitigated in the past, so US abandonment had a role in that too.
Dear Blizzard, If large number of people want to automate or outsource your game experience, then what you have is not a fun game but a chore.
Thank goodness that you are here to straighten out the developers of a game that after nearly ten years consistently has over 7 million subscription paying players.:-)
Yes, and brave men banded together and outlawed those practices. Thank god for Unions, right?
Absolutely. But as my grandfather also taught me the unions of those days were very different from the unions of my grandfather's later working years. By then the unions no longer represented the workers, they like wall street, were just another racket. Union reps were no longer workers but "professionals' always seeking to protect the revenue and status and power of the union organization not the union worker. As a nearly 40 year union worker he was very disappointed in the direction unions went, glorious beginning but sold out to criminals and politicians in the end.
What do you say of the cybersecurity surrounding Hillary Clinton?
It sounds like Penn should hire Hillary Clinton's cybersecurity people. There is absolutely no evidence at all that her basement mail server was ever hacked.
Every company wasn't trying to dip a finger into your wallet with recurring charges.
No they were dipping their finger into your wallet through things like company script, company coins, company stores. Historical "decks" were different, however they were rarely fair, they methods of screwing the worker/consumer were just different.
The latest generation works harder, for longer hours,...
Not according to what my grandparents have told me.
Your grandparents lived in a time when you got a job, held it for the rest of your life if you wanted to,...
Bull. Businesses failed back then too. And for successful companies holding a job for a long time was mostly due to working your ass off to keep that job. There was no guaranteed employment. You had your job as long as the boss was happy. My grandfather once talked back to the boss and he was immediately fired. The laws were not that different from today.
... and from that earned an income to support a stay-at-home spouse and multiple children.
True to a degree but they also lived a much more frugal lifestyle. Didn't go for McMansions, picked a home or apartment that was well within their means. Didn't fund their life on credit cards. What little debt that generation took on would be a home mortgage and it sure as hell wasn't some variable rate loan, the thought of not knowing what a loan payment might be in 7 years was unthinkable. Stay at home moms is also mythologized a bit. When kids were older (10-12) there were often part time jobs. Those part time jobs were quite significant to the family lifestyle, ability to send a kid to college (State U not Ivy League) or a good trade school, etc. Don't confuse 50s era TV families with blue collar reality. My grandfather taught me to weld but my grandmother taught me to solder. She did electronics assembly during the war and in some part time jobs when my father was old enough. When she couldn't get a daytime shift that coincided with school at a good job like that she worked much more menial jobs that did offer such a shift. There was no this job is below my skill level or dignity. My other grandparents, all my great-uncles and great-aunts all have their own stories of a similar nature. The women were grocery store checkout ladies, department store clerks and the five that lived in or near a particular town all worked at the local garment factory for a time.
Is it more difficult today, yes, but perhaps not to the degree you think.
You're joking right? The biggest fuckups I've had to work with are people who came out of the military thinking they're better than everyone else and waving around their More Hooah Than Thou attitude problem.
The military, like every segment of society, has their a-holes.
The recent vets I know are not as your describe and are not that unlike Vietnam era vets that I started working for back in the day and the WWII vet I knew as a child (teachers mostly, they were generally retiring as I entered the work force).
The point being made here is that there is nothing new under the sun. People pissing and moaning about *how times have changed* are full of it. Nothing has 'changed' except the pace of events.
You are having a forest and trees moment. Yes nothing changes, but the point is that when a society gets to the point that self-indulgence *greatly* exceeds a sense of duty and obligation to society then that society falls. Things sometimes change for the worse. And certain behaviors are a recurring theme prior to such changes.
I'm not saying we are there. For example many of those of the current generation who went into the military got past the coddling and fake trophies and perform as well as any other generation. And some have faced the hard realities of the present and learned to deal with it, getting past their upbringing. Maybe its more a matter of the current generation needing more time to adjust to reality since they were kept farther away from it.
They seem to feel "owed" by society a job, and to be treated nicely and fairly.
These are reasonable expectations of a functioning society. That these expectations are considered to be ridiculously entitled is a reflection on society rather than the people who hold them.
Only because you do not understand the true context of the original statement. Perhaps it was stated poorly, but the job they feel they are owed is the type of job they aspire too. So not "job" in general but "aspirational job". Previous generations had an easier time accepting that they will start with a non-aspirational job, have to spend time proving themselves and outperform others to get such aspirational jobs.
To look at it another way, if we don't aspire to a fair and just society where people who want to work can find work, then we've really lost the plot. Not to mention that work was easier to find back in the day, and perhaps we are the entitled ones, begrudging the younger ones wanting what we had on a plate.
Right because this is the first post-WWII generation to graduate amid a banking crisis and/or economic downturn. Not.
I didn't always get congratulated JUST for trying
Noticing children's effort rather than results is better for producing successful adults, as it instils perseverance rather than a sense that your skills are innate and immutable.
Perseverance gets you a handshake and a "good game" not a trophy. Making the olympic team gets you a congratulations and a "very well done" not a medal.
The latest generation works harder, for longer hours,...
Not according to what my grandparents have told me.
... with higher productivity,...
The last 5,000 years of history shows that improved technology increases worker productivity given the same worker effort.
... than any other generation before them and is the first generation in history to be worse off than their parents.
Grossly exaggerated and mis-stated but true for the post WWII era, which is a very very small portion of even US History. However in its proper perspective a valid point.
They're stressed because they're being fucked AND blamed for it at the same time.
Its dishonest to say they have no contribution to the problem. There are genuine problems related to social skills, focus, entitlement, etc. Every generation leaves college thinking they know everything and have to get slapped upside the head and told know you don't. To be told that at best all you've done is show a potential to learn, now do this job for 10 years and we'll re-evaluate how much you know. Part, and I admit this is only part of the problem, is that past generations had an easier time adjusting to this reality.
And to be honest this generation is not lost. With a sufficiently hard slap upside the head they can get past all that coddling and hippie BS. Those who got such a wakeup in the military have shown that they can perform as well as those of previous generations. For the rest, coming to grips with reality will just take longer than past generations.
We had very similar childhoods it seams. I'd like to add one thing.
When I was in my college years and facing a banking crisis and economic downturn upon graduation I thought: "It could be worse. I have it so much better than my grandfathers and great-uncles who spent their childhood years in the great depression and their college-age years fighting from Normandy to Germany and Guadalcanal to Japan." Literally, front lines, not in the rear with the gear. Growing up around people who actually did have a tough life gave me some perspective on mine.
Too often are people unaware that their wealth, their success, which they attribute to themselves, is actually the fruit of suppressing others, in the past and in the present. And then we don't care anymore.
Are you referring to the leaders and the wealthy of the 1800's (the Hawaiian Royalty who gained their position through conquest) or those of the 2000's (the US)? Because your point applies equally well to the current government and the previous government that some are thinking of as the good old days. You do realize that some of the Hawaiian holy sites are holy because that is where the conquerors from another island who declared themselves royal had massacred the locals who dared to not recognize them and/or resisted? The unification of the Hawaiian islands by the royalty was a particular bloody affair.
Now could the Argentine Peso also be a poor store of value, thats plausible
If you believe the Argentine Peso to be a more reliable store of value than bitcoin, then apparently you don't know what you're talking about.
Someone mentioned the Argentine Peso lost 25% this last year. Bitcoin lost over 50%. A 25% loss seems a relatively better store of value than a 50% loss.
The fact that bitcoin can be converted to USD or Euro, would make it a (slightly) more reliable store of value,...
USD that was easily converted to bitcoin a year ago, and easily converted back to USD today, leaves you with over 50% fewer USD. Easy conversion does not make it a reliable store of value. Easy conversion makes it an effective transaction/payment system, assuming the recipient immediately converts the received bitcoin to USD/EUR.
The fact remains that in the last year bitcoin has lost 50%. That bitcoin was over $500 for over half the year and is now about $230. That its trend is lower highs and lower lows.
The fact also remains that you are comparing an era where bitcoin was dominated by enthusiasts with an era where it is dominated by speculators. Its speculators that got bitcoin over $160 in the first place. Without the speculators it might return to something in that region. Its certainly heading that way at the moment.
Again, bitcoin is an awesome payment/transaction technology but it is not a good store of value.
Or it could be seen also as a spotlight of bitcoins as a tool to preserve wealth in a free-falling economy.
In the last year or so bitcoin prices have been in freefall too. Its somewhat stabilized at the moment but bitcoin prices are still speculation driven. One negative policy decision from the Chinese government regarding bitcoin and it could easily be in freefall again.
As a payment method bitcoin is great. But as a store of value its "tulips", at least for now while its dominated by speculators.
That would imply they hold a number of Bitcoins worth some vaguely similar amount to what their current cash holdings are worth.
No it would not. Bitcoin would need to be a reliable store of value for the above to be true. And "store of value" is the currency characteristic where bitcoin fails the hardest.
Bitcoin is very useful as a payment technology. But holding bitcoins is an absolute risk. Which is why most merchants who accept bitcoins for payment never actually see or touch a bitcoin. Their merchant exchange immediately converts to fiat upon receipt and the merchant receives only this fiat currency.
Now could the Argentine Peso also be a poor store of value, thats plausible. The US Dollar or Euro, these are likely to be reasonable stores of value. Going from one risky to another risky, peso to bitcoin, does not make sense compared to going peso to dollar or euro, unless people are prevented from doing so. If prevented from going to dollar or euro then a move to bitcoin would seem more an act of desperation.
The Japanese strategy of using their subs as highly ineffective aircraft carriers is one of the reasons they lost the war.
Ineffective depends on the mission. One mission contemplated for these subs was to deliver plague infected fleas to coastal cities. The technology and techniques were ready to go. Testing had been done on rural Chinese villages.
Unless he is physically ill its hard to image him not wanting a studio to tinker in.
Studio? He has Skywalker Ranch, which is already WAY more than he needs to work on "indie" projects if he chooses to (it was enough for his major projects!)
The entire POINT of this article was that he had another property (Grady Ranch) in Marin where he wanted to build a huge digital film production campus, which had been blocked. This facility was obviously NOT to experiment with indie projects, it was to be a major production house used for many Hollywood titles (not just his, but contracted for effects to many movies like ILM and Skywalker Sound, etc). He eventually decided he didn't need it any more, and wanted to turn it into affordable housing instead. Didn't you RTFA?:)
I'm thinking "indie" more in terms of distribution not production quality. With his resources his "indie" projects could be equivalent to studio production.
"Tinkering" varies greatly with the tinkerer's resources.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is actually that simple. If, as you stated, it was being left to the next president, the withdrawal should not have been included in the agreement.
You are absolutely mistaken. Bush 2 negotiated the withdrawal of the combat troops that he had put into Iraq, essentially an occupational force. The withdraw was on the next President's watch. What was left to that next President to negotiate was a deal for non-combat non-occupational troops. Advisors, instructors, anti-terrorist units, liaisons for Iraqi combat units (i.e. links to US air support), stabilization forces (ex Korean DMZ), etc. An important distinction being that this residual force would be functioning in a fully sovereign and fully independent state.
Your understanding of what the Obama administration wanted to do is also false. They negotiated with the Iraqi government to leave troops behind. The Iraqi government said no.
The negotiation was a farce. Obama wanted all out at any cost, he did not want a successful negotiation and acted accordingly. Taking the no immunity position as final, not something to be negotiated away as was done in the past.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true.
Nothing you wrote backs up that assertion. The Obama administration requested US troops be allowed to stay in Iraq after the negotiated deadline. The Iraqi government said no. Yes, the two governments negotiated, and you have your belief about how that went, but that's your belief. I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Actually you ignore some facts. Fact 1. No immunity was a deal breaker. Fact 2. No immunity was an opening position in past deals and was negotiated away.
By the time Bush II invaded Iraq, the old ones had pretty much rusted out.
The problem was that Saddam was actively creating the impression that Iraq did maintain them and had new weapons programs. It was a disinformation campaign to keep the Iranians guessing for the most part, to maintain the illusion of being a regional power.
No one really knew whether or not Iraq had WMD until US boots were on the ground going into areas UN inspectors were never allowed. Those who had the no-WMD position before the invasion were just as in the dark as those who had the opposite position, it merely turned out the no-WMD crowd was accidentally correct.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true. Things like a lack of immunity for US troops were used as an excuse to leave. The Iraqis opened with such a position in past negotiations and gave in once sufficient money and resources were added to the deal. Its a negotiating tactic. The problem is the new administration did not want a deal, they wanted all out at any cost, so this initial position became a convenient impediment to a deal.
The primary example the GP used to illustrate the point, though, was incorrect. The reason US troops were pulled out of Iraq when they were was because the Bush administration's agreement with the Iraqi government.
Its not that simple. Since the departure of the occupational forces was occurring under the next President's watch it was left to the next President to negotiate a residual force for ongoing stabilization and support of the new Iraqi government. Unfortunately that next President was not interested in leaving such a residual force behind, he wanted all out at any cost.
Your comment about President Clinton is true, but, isn't really relevant. It wasn't about invading Iraq, it was about supporting opposition groups in Iraq.
Apparently Hillary Clinton thought invasion was a valid option for regime change when it came time for her to vote in the Senate.
Silly...Bush 2 started the 2nd Iraq war which destabilized it all. Had he not done that, there would be no ISIS in Iraq.
And if you want to blame someone over the original destabilization and insurgency that helped the original proto-ISIS / al-Quaeda in Iraq get started you really need to blame Paul Bremer. The career diplomat who was in charge of the Provisional Authority that originally governed Iraq. He disbanded the Iraqi Army on his own, without White House or Pentagon approval. So he is primarily responsible for US troops patrolling Iraqi streets and searching Iraqi homes. In past US wars and US occupations the US military removed high ranking officers of the enemy military and had some of its middle and junior ranking officers repot to US officers and these former enemy military officers and their enlisted men did patrols or searches on their own or jointly with the US. But Bremer f'd up such a plan and put disgruntled ex-army on the streets and out of work.
Want an example of how the US military normally handles such things when they are given the choice? After the surrender of German forces in his zone Major Richard Winters (of Band of Brothers fame) ordered the German commander to have his men collect all weapons in town and despot them at the town hall. German troops went from building to building, home to home, collecting weapons. A couple days later Winters went to town hall to inspect the weapons. He found that the German troops had collected every weapon, not just military, but civilian too. Hunting rifles and shotguns, antiques, etc. He told the German commander that he had only wanted the military weapons collected and ordered that the civilian arms should be turned over to the major's office and that civilians could come in and collect their property.
Also some patrols in the area were joint patrols. A couple of German troops would accompany a patrol and these German's would generally handle the stopping of vehicles and interacting with drivers, etc.
Things would have probably gone very differently had the junior officers and enlisted men of the Iraqi army been retained and employed for policing Iraqi's streets, under US supervision. As was done in Germany and Japan and in some areas liberated from Japan. The US used surrendered Japanese troops reporting to US officers to maintain the peace until local authorities could put together their own government and police forces.
Silly...Bush 2 started the 2nd Iraq war which destabilized it all. Had he not done that, there would be no ISIS in Iraq.
Bush 2 defeated proto-ISIS (al-Quaeda in Iraq) with US troops and Sunni tribal fighters in the An Bar Awakening. Proto-ISIS sent word to al-Quaeda leadership to stop sending fighters, that the battle was lost.
Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq. The departure of Occupational/Stabilization forces was negotiated under Bush 2 but since it would be occurring on the next President's watch it was left to that next President to negotiate any residual force that would be left. Obama had no interest in doing so. When the Iraqis said no immunity for US troops Obama used that as an excuse to bail. The fact is the Iraqis *always* open negotiations with that position and then they *always* drop it when the US adds enough money and resources to the deal. Its a negotiating tactic, but Obama didn't want a successful negotiation. If a residual force had been left behind they would not even have had to engage ISIS directly on the ground. Such a force would have access to air support and could have called in air strikes on ISIS convoys of pickup trucks with heavy weapons traveling down open desert highways. You can't really find a scenario more vulnerable to air power, see Highway of Death from the first Gulf War. So what ISIS personnel survived would have lacked heavy weapons and would have been far more easily handled by local Iraqi forces. Not to mention with US backing these same Iraqi tribal forces beat ISIS the first time around. Its only because of US abandonment and abandonment by Baghdad too did these tribal forces decide to flip and join rather than fight.
The circumstances that led to the resurrection of ISIS is entirely Obama's doing, not Bush 2's. At least for the US' share of the blame, Baghdad's treatment of the Sunnis is responsible for a share too. Of course with greater US involvement such things had been mitigated in the past, so US abandonment had a role in that too.
Dear Blizzard, If large number of people want to automate or outsource your game experience, then what you have is not a fun game but a chore.
Thank goodness that you are here to straighten out the developers of a game that after nearly ten years consistently has over 7 million subscription paying players. :-)
Yes, and brave men banded together and outlawed those practices. Thank god for Unions, right?
Absolutely. But as my grandfather also taught me the unions of those days were very different from the unions of my grandfather's later working years. By then the unions no longer represented the workers, they like wall street, were just another racket. Union reps were no longer workers but "professionals' always seeking to protect the revenue and status and power of the union organization not the union worker. As a nearly 40 year union worker he was very disappointed in the direction unions went, glorious beginning but sold out to criminals and politicians in the end.
What do you say of the cybersecurity surrounding Hillary Clinton?
It sounds like Penn should hire Hillary Clinton's cybersecurity people. There is absolutely no evidence at all that her basement mail server was ever hacked.
Every company wasn't trying to dip a finger into your wallet with recurring charges.
No they were dipping their finger into your wallet through things like company script, company coins, company stores. Historical "decks" were different, however they were rarely fair, they methods of screwing the worker/consumer were just different.
The latest generation works harder, for longer hours, ...
Not according to what my grandparents have told me.
Your grandparents lived in a time when you got a job, held it for the rest of your life if you wanted to, ...
Bull. Businesses failed back then too. And for successful companies holding a job for a long time was mostly due to working your ass off to keep that job. There was no guaranteed employment. You had your job as long as the boss was happy. My grandfather once talked back to the boss and he was immediately fired. The laws were not that different from today.
... and from that earned an income to support a stay-at-home spouse and multiple children.
True to a degree but they also lived a much more frugal lifestyle. Didn't go for McMansions, picked a home or apartment that was well within their means. Didn't fund their life on credit cards. What little debt that generation took on would be a home mortgage and it sure as hell wasn't some variable rate loan, the thought of not knowing what a loan payment might be in 7 years was unthinkable. Stay at home moms is also mythologized a bit. When kids were older (10-12) there were often part time jobs. Those part time jobs were quite significant to the family lifestyle, ability to send a kid to college (State U not Ivy League) or a good trade school, etc. Don't confuse 50s era TV families with blue collar reality. My grandfather taught me to weld but my grandmother taught me to solder. She did electronics assembly during the war and in some part time jobs when my father was old enough. When she couldn't get a daytime shift that coincided with school at a good job like that she worked much more menial jobs that did offer such a shift. There was no this job is below my skill level or dignity. My other grandparents, all my great-uncles and great-aunts all have their own stories of a similar nature. The women were grocery store checkout ladies, department store clerks and the five that lived in or near a particular town all worked at the local garment factory for a time.
Is it more difficult today, yes, but perhaps not to the degree you think.
You're joking right? The biggest fuckups I've had to work with are people who came out of the military thinking they're better than everyone else and waving around their More Hooah Than Thou attitude problem.
The military, like every segment of society, has their a-holes.
The recent vets I know are not as your describe and are not that unlike Vietnam era vets that I started working for back in the day and the WWII vet I knew as a child (teachers mostly, they were generally retiring as I entered the work force).
The point being made here is that there is nothing new under the sun. People pissing and moaning about *how times have changed* are full of it. Nothing has 'changed' except the pace of events.
You are having a forest and trees moment. Yes nothing changes, but the point is that when a society gets to the point that self-indulgence *greatly* exceeds a sense of duty and obligation to society then that society falls. Things sometimes change for the worse. And certain behaviors are a recurring theme prior to such changes.
I'm not saying we are there. For example many of those of the current generation who went into the military got past the coddling and fake trophies and perform as well as any other generation. And some have faced the hard realities of the present and learned to deal with it, getting past their upbringing. Maybe its more a matter of the current generation needing more time to adjust to reality since they were kept farther away from it.
They seem to feel "owed" by society a job, and to be treated nicely and fairly.
These are reasonable expectations of a functioning society. That these expectations are considered to be ridiculously entitled is a reflection on society rather than the people who hold them.
Only because you do not understand the true context of the original statement. Perhaps it was stated poorly, but the job they feel they are owed is the type of job they aspire too. So not "job" in general but "aspirational job". Previous generations had an easier time accepting that they will start with a non-aspirational job, have to spend time proving themselves and outperform others to get such aspirational jobs.
To look at it another way, if we don't aspire to a fair and just society where people who want to work can find work, then we've really lost the plot. Not to mention that work was easier to find back in the day, and perhaps we are the entitled ones, begrudging the younger ones wanting what we had on a plate.
Right because this is the first post-WWII generation to graduate amid a banking crisis and/or economic downturn. Not.
I didn't always get congratulated JUST for trying
Noticing children's effort rather than results is better for producing successful adults, as it instils perseverance rather than a sense that your skills are innate and immutable.
Perseverance gets you a handshake and a "good game" not a trophy. Making the olympic team gets you a congratulations and a "very well done" not a medal.
The latest generation works harder, for longer hours, ...
Not according to what my grandparents have told me.
The last 5,000 years of history shows that improved technology increases worker productivity given the same worker effort.
Grossly exaggerated and mis-stated but true for the post WWII era, which is a very very small portion of even US History. However in its proper perspective a valid point.
They're stressed because they're being fucked AND blamed for it at the same time.
Its dishonest to say they have no contribution to the problem. There are genuine problems related to social skills, focus, entitlement, etc. Every generation leaves college thinking they know everything and have to get slapped upside the head and told know you don't. To be told that at best all you've done is show a potential to learn, now do this job for 10 years and we'll re-evaluate how much you know. Part, and I admit this is only part of the problem, is that past generations had an easier time adjusting to this reality.
And to be honest this generation is not lost. With a sufficiently hard slap upside the head they can get past all that coddling and hippie BS. Those who got such a wakeup in the military have shown that they can perform as well as those of previous generations. For the rest, coming to grips with reality will just take longer than past generations.
We had very similar childhoods it seams. I'd like to add one thing.
When I was in my college years and facing a banking crisis and economic downturn upon graduation I thought: "It could be worse. I have it so much better than my grandfathers and great-uncles who spent their childhood years in the great depression and their college-age years fighting from Normandy to Germany and Guadalcanal to Japan." Literally, front lines, not in the rear with the gear. Growing up around people who actually did have a tough life gave me some perspective on mine.
Too often are people unaware that their wealth, their success, which they attribute to themselves, is actually the fruit of suppressing others, in the past and in the present. And then we don't care anymore.
Are you referring to the leaders and the wealthy of the 1800's (the Hawaiian Royalty who gained their position through conquest) or those of the 2000's (the US)? Because your point applies equally well to the current government and the previous government that some are thinking of as the good old days. You do realize that some of the Hawaiian holy sites are holy because that is where the conquerors from another island who declared themselves royal had massacred the locals who dared to not recognize them and/or resisted? The unification of the Hawaiian islands by the royalty was a particular bloody affair.
Now could the Argentine Peso also be a poor store of value, thats plausible
If you believe the Argentine Peso to be a more reliable store of value than bitcoin, then apparently you don't know what you're talking about.
Someone mentioned the Argentine Peso lost 25% this last year. Bitcoin lost over 50%. A 25% loss seems a relatively better store of value than a 50% loss.
The fact that bitcoin can be converted to USD or Euro, would make it a (slightly) more reliable store of value, ...
USD that was easily converted to bitcoin a year ago, and easily converted back to USD today, leaves you with over 50% fewer USD. Easy conversion does not make it a reliable store of value. Easy conversion makes it an effective transaction/payment system, assuming the recipient immediately converts the received bitcoin to USD/EUR.
The fact remains that in the last year bitcoin has lost 50%. That bitcoin was over $500 for over half the year and is now about $230. That its trend is lower highs and lower lows.
The fact also remains that you are comparing an era where bitcoin was dominated by enthusiasts with an era where it is dominated by speculators. Its speculators that got bitcoin over $160 in the first place. Without the speculators it might return to something in that region. Its certainly heading that way at the moment.
Again, bitcoin is an awesome payment/transaction technology but it is not a good store of value.
Or it could be seen also as a spotlight of bitcoins as a tool to preserve wealth in a free-falling economy.
In the last year or so bitcoin prices have been in freefall too. Its somewhat stabilized at the moment but bitcoin prices are still speculation driven. One negative policy decision from the Chinese government regarding bitcoin and it could easily be in freefall again.
As a payment method bitcoin is great. But as a store of value its "tulips", at least for now while its dominated by speculators.
Their currency loses 25% per year ...
Bitcoin recently lost 75% in a year.
That would imply they hold a number of Bitcoins worth some vaguely similar amount to what their current cash holdings are worth.
No it would not. Bitcoin would need to be a reliable store of value for the above to be true. And "store of value" is the currency characteristic where bitcoin fails the hardest.
Bitcoin is very useful as a payment technology. But holding bitcoins is an absolute risk. Which is why most merchants who accept bitcoins for payment never actually see or touch a bitcoin. Their merchant exchange immediately converts to fiat upon receipt and the merchant receives only this fiat currency.
Now could the Argentine Peso also be a poor store of value, thats plausible. The US Dollar or Euro, these are likely to be reasonable stores of value. Going from one risky to another risky, peso to bitcoin, does not make sense compared to going peso to dollar or euro, unless people are prevented from doing so. If prevented from going to dollar or euro then a move to bitcoin would seem more an act of desperation.
The Japanese strategy of using their subs as highly ineffective aircraft carriers is one of the reasons they lost the war.
Ineffective depends on the mission. One mission contemplated for these subs was to deliver plague infected fleas to coastal cities. The technology and techniques were ready to go. Testing had been done on rural Chinese villages.
Unless he is physically ill its hard to image him not wanting a studio to tinker in.
Studio? He has Skywalker Ranch, which is already WAY more than he needs to work on "indie" projects if he chooses to (it was enough for his major projects!)
The entire POINT of this article was that he had another property (Grady Ranch) in Marin where he wanted to build a huge digital film production campus, which had been blocked. This facility was obviously NOT to experiment with indie projects, it was to be a major production house used for many Hollywood titles (not just his, but contracted for effects to many movies like ILM and Skywalker Sound, etc). He eventually decided he didn't need it any more, and wanted to turn it into affordable housing instead. Didn't you RTFA? :)
I'm thinking "indie" more in terms of distribution not production quality. With his resources his "indie" projects could be equivalent to studio production.
"Tinkering" varies greatly with the tinkerer's resources.