Comments by Deathisha

I don't know... the death penalty is such a weird thing:

Is someone kills another after that other murdered his/her husband/wife comitting the same crime as a kidnap/rape/murder?

Should the death penalty be used in both cases? No idea

Personally my beef is with crimes that are so outrageous that you don't really know what to do with the offenders... prison is not punishment enough but what more is there besides death?

The man/woman that avenges his spouse in my eyes is bad, but not as dire as the latter case involving a child

Shoving the second person in prison is almost like a slap on the wrist when viewed in the light of what hes done

It creates a situation where, de facto, a US citizen that has not been charged with a crime is incapable of returning to the United States, because of limitations placed by his own government.

I'm sure somewhere there must be a law that states that US citizens may return to and reside in the US -- and any actions by the US government to prevent this would seem to violate that law.

Dear Sir,

Ms Gallagher questions whether or not those that support gay marriage realize what marriage and moreover a husband mean to her and millions of others.

As a gay person, I would like to ask Ms. Gallagher why she is concerned with what it means to her, in particularly the word "Husband". I am not asking her, or millions of other people to marry me, in other words to be my husband.

"Singapore’s defenders also point out that its libel laws are based on inherited British laws"

---------------

Oh yes because helpless little Singapore, now a sovereign state, is still incapable of changing the laws it inherited. Be sure to ask the Queen for approval, right?

What kind of silly defense is this anyway. Nobody but Singapore determines it's domestic laws just as nobody else is responsible for them if they're a disgrace.

But man oh man...

Mexican food is just so good!

I forgot to close the above comment:

Germany will make the sacrifices and we will morally bludgeon them into sharing at least some of the benefit without making any sacrifices of our own.

Therefor, I think that all of this negativity towards Germany is completely unjustified. In fact, I believe it to be abusive.

If I were German, I would be pretty upset. Imagine:

There are a few kids in a high school class, say 20. One is a really big bully -- but a very bright one. One day the class stands up to him and he get's the ass kicking he deserves.

Later on in life, pretend all 20 students went to university, and all studied the same thing.19 have a party life style, whilst 1 (the bully) stays home and works diligently every evening.. During their studies the entire class becomes best friends.

Once graduations come about, the one takes up the top-job and goes through life doing well for himself suddenly find his friends seem to be jealous (for lack of a better word) of his success.

They think, because he has more money he should pay for dinner whenever any of them go out with him. (Germany, please pay for XXX new EU idea, or at least a larger-than-proportional-part)

Furthermore, the some of the kids the bully picked on particularly intensely now think that it owes them something because the bullying has made them incapable of looking after themselves. (Greece implying it would not be "Caring" if Germany decided not to bail it out -- Germany is going back to it's bullying ways).

From the perspective of the bully - "I've made mistakes when I was younger, I've tried to fix them as best I can, I've apologized. Now however this is getting abusive. I'm just a free meal ticket and a person to mooch off when things go wrong."

"Furthermore, I worked hard to get where I am (no pension age lowering, low wage increases...), and I honestly don't mind sharing, but I do mind when it's taken for granted. Nobody listens to me.

If it weren't for my money, I might as well be sitting in a corner."

Nazis wall Jews into ghettos.

--70 years later--

Jews start walling Muslims into ghettos.

@jolyonwagg1

Nevermind bailing out like Greece. France is a little too big to bail out...

Always Islam. Yes Christianity has it's few violent lines in the bible and I'm sure Judaism does too, but why always Islam?

Frankly, I do not understand how a religion that calls itself peaceful can have so many violent, even absurd aspects. One can argue that it is a group of people that interpret it incorrectly and use it as a justification for violence. One could also argue the reverse, namely that those that do not see it for its inherent violence are simply blind.

I do not know which the case. What I do know is the text of Islam and Islam practiced today are not necessarily the same things. A true intellectual might even go as far as to say "A legal system is based on the society at hands values, which in turn are based on the legal environment governing what is acceptable and what is not."

This ignores the underlying problem which is that Islam "the practice" (Iran's government/legal system can be used as a yardstick) is, frankly, unwelcome in the west. Should and follower of Islam take offense by this then that is indeed unfortunate as no offense was intended.

I for one do not any aspect of Islam whatsoever in any government/legal system that governs me (same goes for other religions, but particularly Islam, because it is particularly problematic, ask gays, women, pretty much any non-Islamic man).

Yes these are the typical criticisms raised against Islam, but they have yet to be addressed, and until they are, Islam may as well be wearing a big "Kick me please" sign on it's back because these will always be brought up again, and again.

If Islam wants more tolerance, it has to clean up it's own mess -- namely its wacky followers. The burden of that does not fall on the west or its citizens.

One could say the west is growing intolerant of Islam and it's intolerance. I for one sure feel that way.

Disclaimer: I am aware that Muslims are not commodities -- each person is unique and their experience with their religion is their business alone. In the above I speak merely of trends.

@MatheusR

Even better of a case. The military didn't adopt black people into the army because it felt it was it's moral duty. It did so because it was forced.

It's a chicken-egg question. Let the gays serve, and thus tolerance grow or does tolerance have to grow so they can serve. Learning from past, it is to let them serve and thus have tolerance grow. Granted contemporary events need to be included before a decision is made, but there is nothing standing in stark contrast to this.

Also, gay people don't need to shout it from the rooftops. You should know this. The recent case involving the lady in the air force in California was because she was "found out" not because she "told" anyone. Mind her partner was a civilian and wasn't exactly on base in her bunk, thus pissing on all the rules that would get even straight people in trouble.

Furthermore, it's only naive when you have absolutely no room to talk on the subject. Matters of equity and the treatment of a minority are definitely room to talk for any citizen, or even non-citizen for that matter.

It's simple. I understand where you are coming from insofar if the majority of a unit feels uncomfortable with a type of person in their midst then this could damage cohesion etc. Important to note here is that this is -NOT- the case, as can be observed again from the above mentioned case, where the unit the woman that was discharged in fought for her reinstatement.

Either way, assumed hypothetically it were the case, it presents you with a dilemma. Indulge the ill behavior of the 'unit' by tolerating it, or declare war on it as to show that it will not be accepted.

By indulging, or turning a blind eye 'for now' the view is reinforced. Those that hold it believe they are justified, and their hatemongering towards a minority is correct under the law. The longer you indulge, the harder it becomes to refute. The correct word to describe a situation like this is to let it "fester".

The native

Free markets and capitalism and the reason why they are based on the ability to freely associate and disassociate has more to do with who controls the factors of production and how the quantities to be produced in markets are determined and how the prices of goods are set.

If you cannot produce according to what you want to produce but must produce according to what you are told, you are surely not able to disassociate freely from that?

It's odd you should talk about 'Western European values' with such authority. How much time have you spent in "Western Europe"? A place where gay marriage and/or civil unions/partnerships are a regular thing -- the latter affording all the same rights as the prior.

Marriage: Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway...
Civil unions/partnerships akin to marriage: Germany, France, UK, Ireland...

Furthermore -- yes I am South African, and insofar polygamy is concerned it is part of many of the tribal cultures that were repressed during the Apartheid years. The reason it is legal is because the current govt. respects the laws and customs of all it's peoples insofar they are in line with the constitution and do not damage the well being of others. The same reasoning applies to gay marriage, as per constitutional court ruling.

In closing you mention other cultures that ban gay marriage. "Chinese, Islamic..." etc. Do you want your country, the USA to be compared using these cultures as yardsticks? It's well known that human rights abuses take place in China and that Islamic cultures will stone a woman to death should be be found guilty of rape. Prime example Iran.

I'm aware not all Iranians or even all Islamic people condone this but we are after all comparing governments based on the values of the culture at hand.

@The native

"Your magazine should return to advocating principles that have defined Western civilization and civilized society as a whole: Free markets, capitalism, and strong family and solid moral values."

Free markets and capitalism are based on one simple thing: Freedom. The power to associate where there is benefit and to disassociate where there is none.

The important thing is free market capitalism does not rule out good moral values but it does not force them down your throat, it gives you a choice. Forcing them on you would be more in line with severe forms of collectivism and communism. Therefor, a free market capitalist state is not in a position to dictate what constitutes good moral values.

Thus the two values you demand the economist advocate are inherently incompatible.

I hope you will reply with an objective opinion this time round instead of "You liberal people will end western society".

MatheusR

National war? I didn't realize "Nazi Canada" was invading. I mean, 9/11 was horrible in all that it was, but it isn't more than it was, namely a horrible event that required that those responsible be hunted down.

The military isn't subject to the discipline of a profit-loss account like market enterprises. The problem in that is that the military can (and often does) over-inflates threats as so to obtain more funding and more concessions in the form of liberties forgone.

You are using 9/11 as an excuse insofar it "started the war on terror, which requires that the military receive unconditional backing both financially and other thus including the deferring of important questions on equality. No questioning allowed, we are at WAR!".

I thus believe your argument is as exaggerated as my hypothetical example.

In closing I see you ignored my other points in the prior comment.

I keep reading in many comments on the economist that...

"America is at war"

Who is America still at war with? It withdrew from Iraq leaving only troops to support the reestablishment of the country, and the Taliban have long ago been obliterated, leaving only a few pack rats to chase around in some caves.

Perhaps America is at war technically, but I mean really. Imagine yourself a future historian, would you look back on the year 2010 and say that America was at war?

I'm starting to think that those that constantly trumpet that the US is at war are schizophrenic. They hear voices and see threats everywhere, even if there are none -- and those (threats) that do exist, they over inflate.

@ MatheusR

A very simple hypothetical example.

The military is mainly white. White people do not like black people. White people therefor believe black people should be barred from serving, because the majority white military would feel uneasy about having a black man in their ranks. The black people might steal their things they believe. It does not matter of black people will in fact steal the white peoples items, the belief therein is enough to have a negative impact on "... esprit de corps, unit cohesion, morale, and other "details"".

The common sense conclusion follows, no black people allowed. That or, "Let them join, make them sleep with handcuffs".

Deja vu anyone?

Furthermore, regarding the "Right to serve" that does not exist. Turn it around and ask "Do you not have a duty to defend?" How can I defend if I am not allowed?

Lastly, it would be unwise to bite the hand that feeds you. How can you sustain a policy that the public at large does not support, when it is this public that gives you the resources you need to do what you do.

You wouldn't dare reply "Well, they do not understand the complexities of running a military. But we do need their money, it is for their well being after all and we know what's best for them anyway. So we'll just take it"

@ The native

In your description, prosperity is directly influenced by culture, race and heritage, exclusively so.

Prosperity is a function of more than culture and heritage. Whilst it plays a role, other factors play a role as well:

-How much is spent on the education of a child (whether by the parents or the state)

-How accepted/loved this child feels during their early stages of childhood (This will ultimately be determined by parents, but I will go so far as saying that black parents vs white parents do not love their children any more or any less)

-The material well being of the child. (Clearly, the application of common sense and discretion is important here. Having a Ferrari at 16 is not material well being, but having clean clothes, enough food, some basic toys etc all contribute)

-Very importantly, how tolerated/accepted the child perceives itself outside of the family as based on it's heritage. This is very heavily affected by the views of society in general, which in turn has it's views heavily influenced by the law.

Having a mixed heritage, black/white for example, is only a problem insofar society makes it one. If a child is teased for being "cross-bred" at school, surely this will be detrimental to their emotional well being, handicapping their ability to learn, participate, socialize, all things essential to eventual prosperity.

Furthermore, the 'teasing/offending' child will have their views shaped by their environment, of which their parents are a cardinal part. Their parents views are in turn, shaped by what they perceive as acceptable behavior, which is very largely determined by the law.

Hence it would appear that not changing the law would be much more detrimental to the well being of society at large than would changing it.

A very simple example in closing. A gay person may have skills that you do not. You can choose to work with them, by being accepting of who they are and leaving it alone, or you can alienate them by attacking their lifestyle and identity. You don't need to like it, but you need to leave it alone.

Working with them benefits you insofar you have access to their skills and abilities, and they have access to yours, putting you both in a better situation. Alienating them leads to no progress for either of you. In fact, it may even have both of you channeling your resources (time and energy) at each other to harm each other. Thus, it may even be detrimental to alienate other people.

@NE0622

Indeed.

People of North Korea, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Goodbye = Famine, disease etc...

Maybe they should chuck the whole thing out and re-write it in a modern context.

Although, the Republicans and Democrats would never agree on any of it, so perhaps standing so an old outdated text is better than standing to no text at all -- or even a text that could be more extreme to either side.

I don't know what conclusions can accurately be drawn from this information because, as other readers have mentioned, degrees can be vague and quite frankly some can be useless.

By useless I do not mean that any particular academic field is useless as that implies a value judgment that I am in no position to make. By useless I mean that they may be ill composed, catering to those that are at university because "It's just what they do after high school." A major in "Jack of all trades, master of none" if you will.

Whether or not a jack-of-all trades should be referred to as a skilled person is questionable in my opinion.

This brings me to another point. Who is a skilled person? Moreover, does having a degree confer "skilled person" status?

I'm not sure how to word my opinion so I will try to illustrate by means of an example:

Two mechanics exist. Both are tasked with repairing the same model of car, with identical problems. One has modern, all-you-could-wish-for tools, whilst the other has rusty old tools from god knows what century. Surely the newer tools would facilitate the job but the largest determinant as to who gets the job done in the best manner will surely be the difference in skills between the two men.

I think that a degree is merely a collection of techniques (tools) you have at your disposal. How essential the tools are to the job is another question entirely -- A doctor without a medical degree vs an entrepreneur without a management degree. One is feasible one is not.

In the end, is there really a skills mismatch, or are degrees simply being issued "for the sake of it"? In addition, how much of the mismatch can be appropriated to expectation that having a degree means you are skilled? Ultimately some graduates must really suck at what they studied and wind up in a 'lower end' job.

Useless/incomplete data from which unsound conclusions can be drawn? Anyone?