My point is that Europeans get a bit upset when Americans shout loudly in English in our streets about how terrible it is that we don't want to speak their language - the only language the American in question speaks - in our own country, just for the personal convenience of the monolinguistic tourist.
Funny. That's an entirely sane and credible point. But it sounded like you were saying that Americans simply can't speak foreign languages to even a minimally useful degree. Quite a damn few of us can.
Of course, this all depends on our standard for "minimally useful". Mine was that I wouldn't have to revert to English while visiting another country unless a native asked me to for their own convenience. Yours, from the sound of it, is fluency or near-fluency, enough to carry on in-depth business conversations in a non-native tongue.
And while studies do show that ridiculously few Americans are fluent in a non-native tongue, you try living on a continent where you can travel 3000 miles in any direction and as long as you don't cross an ocean you'll only ever encounter 3 languages used as the primary language of their respective provinces/countries (English, French, Spanish). I bet if you grew up in a place so linguistically homogenous you wouldn't be any good with foreign languages either. Why? Immersion works, even when only done partially. French people find it much easier to pick up British or German TV/books/movies/records than Americans find it to get French media.
Honestly, I never assume anyone in a foreign country will speak English and I try to improve my language skills when/where I can, but apparently unless I become fluent - preferably in two or more foreign languages - I'm just an ignoramus living with my head in fog.
(Hint: the standard of living in Paris is higher than in many parts of the US, ie they don't need your tourist dollars.)
Hint: slurring each others' nationalities will get us nowhere. The parts of the USA with a standard of living significantly worse than Paris tend to have very, very little population or to be urban slums comparable to the slummy suburbs the French stick Algerians in.
Only 15% of Americans [cbsnews.com] believe that humans evolved, and that God was not involved. With that size of a majority, it's almost inevitable that most school board members, principals, and teachers don't buy the full implications of evolutionary theory.
And of course when an American claims to speak any other language, they usually don't (unless they were born in Cuba) and everyone outside America knows this, which doesn't really help to make everyone else indulgent when Americans criticise their language skills.
Yes, I'm sure all those people who dealt with my horrible Hebrew last winter were just indulging me and would really have preferred that I spoke English so they could understand me. We Americans are really just that bad at foreign languages, don'tcha know?
As stated above, "third tier" mainly means schools might teach well, but have small endowments, no brand name, and little research. "Second tier" means having at least one of those (preferably two out of three), and "first tier" means having them all.
Fascism is a form of authoritarian extreme nationalism. It often comes *with* totalitarianism, but not most of the time.
For example, it took a *long* time for average, German-blooded, Christian German citizens to start getting locked up for political opposition in Nazi Germany... "and then they came for me". America *is* fascist at the moment, but it's still at the stage of "they came for the Jews" (except this time it's Arabs/Muslims). And we have a ridiculously small Muslim population, hence the lack of fascistic activities towards most people.
If there's a bright side to this, it's that Germany shows that it *is* possible to bounce back from a bout of fascism into a reasonable, prosperous, thriving civilization. This will not be the end of America as anything but the world's dominant military power unless Americans make it so. In fact, if Obama (extraordinarily for a politician) comes through on his election promises and gets elected (fat chance!), America could actually back out of the fascism entirely without going through a crisis or war on home soil.
You think of the European Union that way because you've never been to America or an Islamic country. The EU has it easy because the powerful folks in the EU realize that they should at least give the average person a fair go at a decent (if anonymous) life.
Doesn't sound like Karl Marx to me at all. It sounds like ordinary social-democratic ideas. Karl Marx was not simply about making things fair for the middle classes and lower at the expense of the rich.
Karl Marx was about violent revolution, forcibly overthrowing the old order to be replaced with a Communist utopia that runs along the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
When you see that in the Democratic Party platform, then come back and call them Marxist.
And Socialism? There's a gigantic difference between the Democratic approach (government provides services when it seems pragmatically best to do so) and the Socialist one (government does things because of Socialist faith in government as a panacea). If the Democrats go to far in governing, it's because when they have one hammer everything looks like a nail, not because they adhere to a political philosophy that simply never got a solid foothold in American politics outside of the Great Depression!
Are you trolling? Democrats are "effeminate", "socialist", and "Marxist"? I'll give you liberal and bleeding-heart (would people please STOP thinking of the goddamn children!? I've hated being thought of as a child since I was a child!), but the Democratic Party would, in any country that vaguely calls itself socialist or social-democratic, be thought of as RIGHT-WING.
The United States does not have a mainstream socialist party. Hell, last I heard the actual Socialist Party can't run anyone for President because they're all immigrants from Europe.
Your statements contradict each other. Why should someone take a job they have to pay to do for the "long term" value when the long-term value of a Ph.D isn't even that much over an MS/MA or BS/BA?
You think lack of company-bought daycare will cause the fall of civilization? I think not.
The text I quoted said "the public". I think I can pretty reasonably expect society at large to subsidize certain things for everyone's children because those children are the future of that society.
Welcome to modern, First-World countries, where we've made having a kid so damned expensive that if you don't subsidize it publicly people just stop having children and blow their time and money on sex, drugs, rock, roll, computer parts, fancy vacations, alcoholic drinks, and various other pleasures because it's become too much effort to bring up children all on your own.
Of course, it's not like more primitive societies didn't make accommodations for children. Pregnant women have always received special consideration. Back before there was public healthcare you expected the other members of your village/tribe to make sure your kids learned proper behavior, didn't run away, and did their job(s). "Subsidizing" children is just a new form of what humanity has always done for the sake of its own survival, except that parents no longer require their children as a retirement system so all of a sudden everyone who chose not to have children can freely express their disdain for their own legacy (or lack thereof) without having to fear winding up beggars on the street in their old age as a consequence.
Keep in mind that when "the company" pays for something, that comes out of profits, and eventually that all boils down to what people get paid. So their fellow workers are actually helping to subsidize the deluxe daycare... which is NOT fair. Or ethical.
Actually... no. When "the company" pays for something it comes out of the firm's profits, which would eventually boil down to money for reinvestment and for shareholder's dividends. You're incredibly naive if you think putting more money in corporate coffers by cutting daycare benefits would lead to higher pay for the workers.
It's obviously Google's choice whether to continue or cut the daycare benefits, but someone somewhere has to make the outlays so that parents can afford children, or we'll find the Japanese population collapse happening worldwide.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that Europeans get a bit upset when Americans shout loudly in English in our streets about how terrible it is that we don't want to speak their language - the only language the American in question speaks - in our own country, just for the personal convenience of the monolinguistic tourist.
Funny. That's an entirely sane and credible point. But it sounded like you were saying that Americans simply can't speak foreign languages to even a minimally useful degree. Quite a damn few of us can.
Of course, this all depends on our standard for "minimally useful". Mine was that I wouldn't have to revert to English while visiting another country unless a native asked me to for their own convenience. Yours, from the sound of it, is fluency or near-fluency, enough to carry on in-depth business conversations in a non-native tongue.
And while studies do show that ridiculously few Americans are fluent in a non-native tongue, you try living on a continent where you can travel 3000 miles in any direction and as long as you don't cross an ocean you'll only ever encounter 3 languages used as the primary language of their respective provinces/countries (English, French, Spanish). I bet if you grew up in a place so linguistically homogenous you wouldn't be any good with foreign languages either. Why? Immersion works, even when only done partially. French people find it much easier to pick up British or German TV/books/movies/records than Americans find it to get French media.
Honestly, I never assume anyone in a foreign country will speak English and I try to improve my language skills when/where I can, but apparently unless I become fluent - preferably in two or more foreign languages - I'm just an ignoramus living with my head in fog.
(Hint: the standard of living in Paris is higher than in many parts of the US, ie they don't need your tourist dollars.)
Hint: slurring each others' nationalities will get us nowhere. The parts of the USA with a standard of living significantly worse than Paris tend to have very, very little population or to be urban slums comparable to the slummy suburbs the French stick Algerians in.
Only 15% of Americans [cbsnews.com] believe that humans evolved, and that God was not involved. With that size of a majority, it's almost inevitable that most school board members, principals, and teachers don't buy the full implications of evolutionary theory.
Understanding evolution != being atheist.
Lovecraftian horrors are so much FUN.
The USA doesn't have universal religion classes.
And of course when an American claims to speak any other language, they usually don't (unless they were born in Cuba) and everyone outside America knows this, which doesn't really help to make everyone else indulgent when Americans criticise their language skills.
Yes, I'm sure all those people who dealt with my horrible Hebrew last winter were just indulging me and would really have preferred that I spoke English so they could understand me. We Americans are really just that bad at foreign languages, don'tcha know?
LOL. The country folk are OK in France... though everyone knows Parisians are douches no matter where you come from.
As stated above, "third tier" mainly means schools might teach well, but have small endowments, no brand name, and little research. "Second tier" means having at least one of those (preferably two out of three), and "first tier" means having them all.
In the real world, there are two tiers of university: name-brand, and everyone else.
We here in New York are actually just waiting for our chance to vote Hillary out of office. Fuck Hillary.
Fascism is a form of authoritarian extreme nationalism. It often comes *with* totalitarianism, but not most of the time.
For example, it took a *long* time for average, German-blooded, Christian German citizens to start getting locked up for political opposition in Nazi Germany... "and then they came for me". America *is* fascist at the moment, but it's still at the stage of "they came for the Jews" (except this time it's Arabs/Muslims). And we have a ridiculously small Muslim population, hence the lack of fascistic activities towards most people.
If there's a bright side to this, it's that Germany shows that it *is* possible to bounce back from a bout of fascism into a reasonable, prosperous, thriving civilization. This will not be the end of America as anything but the world's dominant military power unless Americans make it so. In fact, if Obama (extraordinarily for a politician) comes through on his election promises and gets elected (fat chance!), America could actually back out of the fascism entirely without going through a crisis or war on home soil.
You think of the European Union that way because you've never been to America or an Islamic country. The EU has it easy because the powerful folks in the EU realize that they should at least give the average person a fair go at a decent (if anonymous) life.
Doesn't sound like Karl Marx to me at all. It sounds like ordinary social-democratic ideas. Karl Marx was not simply about making things fair for the middle classes and lower at the expense of the rich.
Karl Marx was about violent revolution, forcibly overthrowing the old order to be replaced with a Communist utopia that runs along the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
When you see that in the Democratic Party platform, then come back and call them Marxist.
And Socialism? There's a gigantic difference between the Democratic approach (government provides services when it seems pragmatically best to do so) and the Socialist one (government does things because of Socialist faith in government as a panacea). If the Democrats go to far in governing, it's because when they have one hammer everything looks like a nail, not because they adhere to a political philosophy that simply never got a solid foothold in American politics outside of the Great Depression!
'Why is is so hard to get a damn bath around here'
Because you Zealot morons are bathing in Yam ha'Melach, the Dead Sea!
Are you trolling? Democrats are "effeminate", "socialist", and "Marxist"? I'll give you liberal and bleeding-heart (would people please STOP thinking of the goddamn children!? I've hated being thought of as a child since I was a child!), but the Democratic Party would, in any country that vaguely calls itself socialist or social-democratic, be thought of as RIGHT-WING.
The United States does not have a mainstream socialist party. Hell, last I heard the actual Socialist Party can't run anyone for President because they're all immigrants from Europe.
Really the two parts of the state should just separate into two different states. Then let the NYC area unite with Conneticut and/or New Jersey.
Your statements contradict each other. Why should someone take a job they have to pay to do for the "long term" value when the long-term value of a Ph.D isn't even that much over an MS/MA or BS/BA?
So have you asked your wife how much she gets paid?
Oh great... you made me realize who's really running the country... it all makes sense now -- "exterminate".
Try this. They claim it's 3.5 hours of game time, but the puzzles are *hard*, so it takes more like a day.
You think lack of company-bought daycare will cause the fall of civilization? I think not.
The text I quoted said "the public". I think I can pretty reasonably expect society at large to subsidize certain things for everyone's children because those children are the future of that society.
Welcome to modern, First-World countries, where we've made having a kid so damned expensive that if you don't subsidize it publicly people just stop having children and blow their time and money on sex, drugs, rock, roll, computer parts, fancy vacations, alcoholic drinks, and various other pleasures because it's become too much effort to bring up children all on your own.
Of course, it's not like more primitive societies didn't make accommodations for children. Pregnant women have always received special consideration. Back before there was public healthcare you expected the other members of your village/tribe to make sure your kids learned proper behavior, didn't run away, and did their job(s). "Subsidizing" children is just a new form of what humanity has always done for the sake of its own survival, except that parents no longer require their children as a retirement system so all of a sudden everyone who chose not to have children can freely express their disdain for their own legacy (or lack thereof) without having to fear winding up beggars on the street in their old age as a consequence.
Keep in mind that when "the company" pays for something, that comes out of profits, and eventually that all boils down to what people get paid. So their fellow workers are actually helping to subsidize the deluxe daycare... which is NOT fair. Or ethical.
Actually... no. When "the company" pays for something it comes out of the firm's profits, which would eventually boil down to money for reinvestment and for shareholder's dividends. You're incredibly naive if you think putting more money in corporate coffers by cutting daycare benefits would lead to higher pay for the workers.
It's obviously Google's choice whether to continue or cut the daycare benefits, but someone somewhere has to make the outlays so that parents can afford children, or we'll find the Japanese population collapse happening worldwide.
Why do you address humans as though you aren't one?
It is not ethical to expect the public (or their co-workers) to subsidize their children.
18 years from now, do you want there to be a civilization, or not?
I don't cheat. Why would I cheat?
But no pantheon was quite as funny as "Doctor Who".
What about kosher hot dogs?