Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Tchiowa wrote:
Jordi wrote:
If you are unable to understand the difference between government
control and regulation then you have a real problem with economics.

You keep telling 4 weeks holiday is 'control'

??? No I didn't. I cited that as one example that is part of a bigger
problem. 4 weeks holiday is not "control". Government ordering that
companies provide benefits that aren't related to performance is one
example of control.

Pulling back now? You kept telling a 4 week holiday was unsustainable
and government interference until provided with a couple of examples.


In Europe it's part of a much, much bigger problem.


There is a problem with unemployment in Europe. It's not at all related
to the vacation policy, as some countries (some of them in Europe)
show.


Australia's unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in decades, yet
still 10% higher than the US rate (4.6% - 5.1%, a .5% difference which
is 10% of 4.6% - had to do the math for you so we don't have to
exchange 20 more postings to get you to understand).

5% is usually considered a full employment figure.


http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/ove...verview_06.htm

Sweden's rate is about 6%, even higher.

Recovering from a 90s economic crisis, and published at 5,8%.

http://www.indexmundi.com/sweden/unemployment_rate.html

OK. "Other Scandinavian countries"? OK.

Finland (2004, the most recent I found without spending hours proving
you don't know what you're talking about): 8.9%.

Finland is not a Scandinavian country, better brush up your geography.

Norway (population 4 million, smaller than many American *cities*):
4.4%. Roughly the same as the US as a whole.


Nearly a 5% lower, following your math on Australia.

And these are the *best examples* you can come up with. Again, as I
have pointed out before, you can try to chop pieces out of the whole to
try to prove something. But that is a distortion. I can cite parts of
the US where unemployment is around 3%. But, *TAKEN AS A WHOLE* the
unemployment rate in Europe is roughly double the rate in the US.

But you don't seem to understand that Europe can't be taken as a whole,
not even the EU.


Further, your stats don't prove what you claim at all. Yes it's
possible to have high vacations and a competitive economy, but as I've
pointed out *repeatedly*, the vacation mandate is just *part* of the
problem.


Please, it works in other countries, you can't blame unemployment on
vacation after seeing the figures in those other countries.


Before you come up with the "smart" response, I've been to Europe
probably 100 times and visited a large number of European countries.


You've said that half a dozen times already, the only possible
conclusion is that you can spend a considerable amount of time in a
foreign country and not realise what's going on.

Or that I *do* see it and you don't and thus you remain confused.




There's history, you see. Are you by any chance pretending the US is
exempt from those?

No. Just pointing out the fact that the reason so many Euros have
passports is due to hatred and bigotry, not some cultural superiority
as has been implied.

Cultural superiority as having more different cultures in a reduced
space, yes, that's it.

But that wasn't the claim. The claim was cultural superiority (implied)
due to having a lot of passports and travelling between countries.


It was you who came with that term, you can think what you want. Let's
go back to the Australians, they have an enormous diverse country just
like the Americans and an extremely high % of passport ownership..
don't you think their 5-week holiday may have something to do with
them?


As do a lot of other things. Most Americans have "real" vacations and
most have more to spend on their vacations that Euros do.

Sure you mean 'most Americans over 45'?

No, I mean most Americans *PERIOD* have "real" vacations.


2 weeks. Big deal.

You can, just less.

Quantity as opposed to quality?

Quality is just on the individual.

But you seem to be claiming that you can't have quality without
quantity. To me "quality" defines a "real" vacation. To you, if it's
not 4 weeks in the first year of your employment it's not "real".

Exactly.

I now see why you said holidays can be stressful, if you are trying to
pack an international trip on your sole 2-week holiday you will very
likely be stressed as a result.


They seem to do pretty well, so the answer is no, as the cap on
vacation is economic sense.

"Cap"? It's a "floor", not a cap.

The floor is there by law, the cap is economic sense, as different
employers give an extra holiday allowance.


J.

"The Reid" wrote ...
Following up to Hatunen

Tourist spots??? English is the primary and *official* language of
government for the EU.

So because memebrs of the EU bureacracy sometimes use English it
means almost all Europeans speak English? Your logic escapes
mmost of us.

according to the EU it has 20 official languages, soon to be 21,
and 30% of Europeans can hold a conversation in English. (dont
know at what level) Of course that 30% are the educated people.
Tshower should try going to a small town in Spain and seeing if
the garage mechanic, taxi driver or police can understand him :-)
In restaurants I hear mixed groups of educated europeans speaking
in mixed language without english taking priority. In a business
meeting english may well be used, (nobody is denying it is
becoming the world language). But spoken on the street in non
anglophone countries? Total bollox. In France the idea would be
heretical.

Having just returned from a modest consulting job in South Texas, I was
amused by the above paragraph....

That close to the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo, there were no taxis, but the garage
mechanics' English was fragmentary, and the Constable had to "hunt and peck"
for English tewrms to describe how to reach a remote location in the county.
There are large parts of Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. where English is
the distant second language, not well understood or spoken by all, and in
Laredo or Del Rio, it's rare to hear English spoken "on the street".

"Business" conversations are liable to be held in Spanglish, Post Hole
Spanish, or a sort of Border Lingua Franca....

TMO

Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 17:11:46 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 01:40:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


The Reid wrote:
Following up to Carole Allen

and Europeans can travel between most countries without going through
any kind of passport control.

there's no place for common sense in this debate.

Plenty of common sense in the discussion. It's your ability to
comprehend that is at question.

You're all alone here. No one seems to wants to support your point of
view, because you are not making sense.

"No one"? You mean you and a couple of other US bashers who aren't
happy because I pointed out a rather glaring inconsistency in your
position.

The French speak English in the street,

Many do.

Many? Yes, maybe a whopping 1% speak some English in the street.

You should go to Paris again.

Now there's your problem. The assumption that the people in a
city like Paris are representative of the entire country. That
sort of dumb reasoning undermines everything you say.

I see. So the people in Paris aren't French? How about Marseille? I
found the same thing.

You need to get out more.

Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 17:52:39 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 22:45:11 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry
that has kept the continent at war with itself for centuries. Not
something to be proud of.

and Europeans can travel between most countries without going through
any kind of passport control.

These days, yes. But that's a recent development. The reason a lot of
Euros have passports was because that wasn't the case until recently.

Try to keep up.

As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after
WW1. The fact that they are no longer needed for much
intra-European travel means that they really only served their
purpose for about 80 years out of two millenia of European
history. You make a pretty weak case with the passport business,
espcially since you don't explain *why* passports are an
indication of bigotry and hatred.

Passports are not an indication of bigotry and hatred. I never said
that.

I could swear it was you who said:

"Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and
bigotry that has kept the continent at war with itself for
centuries."

I think I did. But, as I pointed out repeatedly, it's not the passport,
it's the need for the passport. It's the international boundaries.

Ever hear of "root cause analysis"? You should pick up a book.

The need to have a passport in order to travel more than a couple of
hours in any direction in Europe is a result of the fact that Europe is
chopped up into little political entities.

OK.

And that is a result of
1,000 years or more of bigotry and hatred and war.

Ah, see, you're waffling now; that's not what you've said. You've
said it was a result of bigotry and hatred, not war.

What do you think caused the war? Stale wine?

Bigotry and hatred.

The hatred and bigotry caused the boundaries and the need for passports
to travel arised from the boundaries.

Now, see, there's where your reasoning seems to be coming a
cropper. You provide no evidence that hatred and bigotry caused
teh boundaries.

Are you saying that the boundaries just appeared on a map one day?

You're not aware that over 1,000 years of hatred, bigotry, war, greed,
etc. formed those boundaries?

Therefore the need for passports
for Euros results not from some cultural superiority as has been
claimed but rather because the hatred and bigotry that has existed for
a millenium and more (and still exists) created the national borders.

Who, exactly, was it that said the need for passports came
cultural superiority?

Follow the thread back.

So the "More Europeans have passports than Americans" statement (which
is what this discussion is about) does not prove cultural superiority
but rather stems from a history of war and hatred.

I don't beleive the claim was made that the need for passports
proved cultural superority; I believe the calim was that
Europeans traveled more.

No, that Europeans travelled "abroad" more. In the context that
Europeans are superior and get more and better vacations as proven by
how many of them have passports. I challenged that rather dumb
statement.

The US was once a group of small political entities that didn't much
like each other.

That's certainly a bit overstated; can you document the claim
that the royal govenment of Virginia didn't much liek the royal
government of Norht Carolina?

1860. Bit of a struggle in the US.


It was not a "group of small political entities" that fought the Civil War.
There were only two sides. And while I will agree with you that the war
further solidified the union as one entity, our founding fathers were well
aware in the 1770s that the fledging states needed to join together. They
declared independence as one country, fought a war together as one country,
and authored the Constitution as one country.

Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 17:57:36 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

So because memebrs of the EU bureacracy sometimes use English it
means almost all Europeans speak English? Your logic escapes
mmost of us.

Interesting. I cited several examples. You separate them then respond
that *just one* of them doesn't prove anything. Try taking things as a
whole.

Oh, wow. You cited several examples. But you provided no
Gallup-type justification for extrapolating from those example to
an entire continent.

So now I have to conduct a continent wide poll for you?

It is the primary language of business
throughout the EU.

Not yet. It is the primary language in certain places, e.g., the
board of FIAT.

Try again. Look at the law for contracts in the EU.

What, exactly, does it say?

I told you to look. Go ahead.

English is the primary language of business in the EU for any business
that crossed national borders.

Ah. Changing your claim again. Now you add the qualification that
it is true for businesses that cross national boundaries. Do you
have an itemized list of all the European businesses that cross
national boundaries, denoting those that conduct business in
English and those that don't?

No. Do you? Or are you just grasping at an argument because you know
you're wrong?

It is the primary language for education throughout the EU.

Most student now have to study English in the schools, but it is
far from the "primary language for education throughout the EU".

It is *required* for lower level students to learn at a minimum level
and many University degrees require almost fluencyi.

That is NOT the same thing as "the primary language of
education."

Pardon me. I guess I should have said "higher education".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3143464.stm

"Italians place a very high importance on learning languages,
particularly English. Fifteen years ago it was quite difficult to find
an English speaker here but today it is relatively easy."

"Relatively easy"? Compared to what?

As compared to what it used to be like, maybe? Which has been my
experience in 2 decades travelling to Europe fairly regularly.

Try traveling into the hinterlands a little more.

Like where? Atyrau, Kazakhstan? Riga, Latvia? Oporto, Portugal?

Or are you starting like a couple of other people I've seen posting
that unless you hang out with the poor and uneducated you can't
possibly understand the culture?

YOu're very
much like those Europeans who come to the USA, visit New York and
Los Angeles, and proceed to tell us what all Americans are like,
even those in Kansas and Texas and Oregon.

How about the Europeans that come to the USA over 100 times and spend
several years total in 50 cities in 1/3 of the states. Would that help?

That's pretty much what I've done in Europe.

(As an example, I checked my Frequent Flyer data base. I've landed in
Paris 83 times. Yes, I got so tired of the place that the last 40 or so
I spent very little time there. Took the train to Amsterdam or Lisbon
or anywhere else I could find other than Paris.)

Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 18:12:23 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

World War
One was not caused by hatred or bigotry, it was the result of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire deciding that the little incident at
Sarajevo was a good excuse to add Serbia to the Empire.

And considering the people Serbia as some kind of "lesser people"
didn't figure into that calculation?

I have no evidence of that; do you?

Yes. It's called "experience". I've spent many years of my adult life
living in war zones. I learned what it takes to make war. First thing
is to de-personalize your enemy. If you look at the soldiers on the
other side as men with wives and children and houses who watch football
and get drunk on weekends you have a hard time killing them. To make
war successfully you first have to take the view that your needs or
views are so far superior to theirs and that you and your people are
superior to them.

To start a war of conquest like
that you first must consider your target to be unworthy of protection
and independence.

Not necessarily. That's a wild leap of logic. Not all wars were
Hitlerian, and certainly the Great War was not.

See above.

The US was once a group of small political entities that didn't much
like each other.

That's certainly a bit overstated; can you document the claim
that the royal govenment of Virginia didn't much liek the royal
government of Norht Carolina?

1860. Bit of a struggle in the US.

So you calim that in 1860 Virginai didn't much like North
Carolina?

Nope. But they weren't fond of New York at all.

It's commonly said that prior to the Civil War we said "The United
States *are*" but after the war we said "The United States *is*"
(indicating a finally unified country).

It's commonly said, all right. But attemtps to document it have
demonstrated it to be untrue.

Whose attempts?

But the US unified (for better or for worse). Europe
was never able to unify because of the hatred and bigotry and can't
unify today for many of the same reasons.

Bigotry doesn't enter into it, and hatred is a bit strong; it's
more like "suspicious", and given the past history of various
attemts to achieve power over Europe perhaps rightfully so.

OK. Bigotry, hatred, power, greed *AND* suspicion.

And what would that suspicion be a result of?

Mostly unfounded suspicion based on a belief that they are somehow less
human than you are and their mere existence deprives you of something
you think you deserve so you are suspicious of their motives.

Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 17:16:06 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

Oddly, so have I, plus many others reading this. Your view seems way
different to anyone elses here, suggesting you must be right, and
we're all wrong.

The Euro's opinion of themselves?

Which part do you disagree with? The fact that Europe is chopped up
into little political units because of a millenium of bigotry and war?
The fact the European economy is lagging far, far behind the US? The
fact that unemployment in most of Europe is roughly double what it is
in the US?

I see you like trick questions. When did you stop beating your
wife sort of thing.

No. Those are legitimate questions. They are the points I've been
making and you claim that I must be wrong because you and others
disagree. So which of the points are you disagreeing with?

"Which part do you disagree with? The fact that Europe is chopped
up into little political units because of a millenium of bigotry
and war?"

You don't leave it open to the possibility that Eruope is chopped
up into little political units for other reasons (and some of
those political units are pretty damn big).

Then you disagree about the reason. Tell me about all the love and
acceptance that created the borders.

Creole food and Philly Cheese Steaks are as common as Big Macs in the
US? I don't think so.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Maybe not as common, but pretty common nowadays. There are now chain
restaurants and shops in many cities across the country. Here in Atlanta
there are numerous Creole/Cajun restaurants, and two Philly Cheesesteak
locations within a few miles of my house. Lots of communities have Mardi
Gras parties every year and offer their own take on Louisiana cuisine. Some
of it is pretty pathetic, mind you, but it's there :-)

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 17:10:14 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

After all *what*????? An editorial from a biased source quoting a
defense attorney????

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that bias.

Let me get this straight. You're waiting for me to document the fact
that the BBC has been caught deliberately falsifying evidence to try to
discredit Blair and Bush as to the conduct of the war?

(and no, merely trying to broadly discredit the BBC doesn't count)

I don't need to try. They did that to themselves.

you still conclude that all of them are guilty,

Learn to read. I never said anyone was "guilty" of anything.

You most certainly concluded that.

Out and out lie. Show me where I said that.

and deserve no legal recourse. Not so much as a shadow of a doubt.
None.

Do you understand anything about war? Prisoners captured during a war
may *NOT* be subjected to criminal trials and may be held until the end
of the war without "any legal recourse".

Right, this all comes down to the declaration of war on some phantom
enemy. I forgot. Apparently you take no issue with this, but are just
blinding trusting the US's word, no matter how flimsy it is.

That would be the phantoms that knocked down the Twin Towers and killed
3,000 people? The phantoms that bombed the Madrid subway? The phantoms
that bombed the UK transit system? The phantoms that were just stopped
from bombing 10 trans-Atlantic flights? *Those* phantoms?

If you don't think we're at war with Islamic Fascists then you need to
wake up. The fact is that the politicians refuse to label them as
Islamic so they just say "Terrorists". But that doesn't alter the fact
that we are in a shooting war.

You've obviously made up your mind on this one, so there's not much
point in trying to get any sense out of, or into you. That brain of
yours is in lockdown denial mode.

Pots and kettles. You clearly don't understand any of the issues but
you're not going to let that get in the way of your prejudices.

My predjudice is getting these people on trial (IOW justice). Yours is
to avoid seeing that happen.

On trial for *what*? Most aren't accused of breaking US law. They are
being held as prisoners of war. Nothing "guilty" about that. And no
trials to hold.

During WWII, did the UK put captured German soldiers on trial or did
they simply hold them until the end of the war then send them home?