> Maybe they weren't so consumed about fighting with each other since they had a common enemy to focus on.
<rant>
And who would this “common enemy” be? The Spiel that white people considered black people their enemies during Apartheid is a bit incorrect (yet a popular sentiment in the west).
It is ironic that statistically, the plight of the majority of black people is now far worse in SA than during Apartheid (life expectancy, income inequality, unemployment, infancy mortality, matric pass rate, TIMSS score, etc…). Apartheid (i.e. separate development and rule for all ethnic and cultural groups) as an ideology is failed (mostly due to industrial development which caused South Africa to become a scrambled egg of people). Yet the ideology of full democracy (i.e. tyranny of the majority) is also spectacularly failing. Yet no one would acknowledge the latter failings.
<\rant>
> I'm somewhat convinced we're at the point in the US where the opposition party (either one) would sabotage the plan for short term political gain.
But in any case, I digress. You are right about this part. Everyone is NIMBY. The problem is also that using coal to make fuel would release CO2. And this is counter to the ideology of the far left (which only wants non-practical solutions to be implemented).
The USA landed people on the moon in less than a decade. I am sure that if they put their minds to it, they can expand nuclear power generation significantly (to reduce CO2) and start to make a significant part of their liquid fuel requirement from coal.
> People will die as a result of pretty much any peak oil scenario.
Not really. South Africa was a third world country under heavy sanctions.
Yet it created industries to produce petroleum from coal (and even today these companies produce 40%+ of SA's liquid fuel requirements).
If a crappy third world country can do it with 70ies technology (most of which they weren't even allowed to import legally), why can't first world country do this?
> but it's us stinky hippies that bang on the loudest and for the longest about sustainable transport solutions, renewable energy and sustainable population.
Nope. Wasn't the "stinky hippies" the groups that consistently protested against nuclear power? Being anti-nuclear power in the 70ies and 80ies was the bandwagon for the far left (now it is global warming).
It is not google news but sites which aggregate search terms. A good example is www.eudict.com which repeatedly puts up other peoples' search terms as real words.
(If you are searching for some words, you are flooded with EUDicks search spam)
> just blacklisting a few of the larger and more egregious content farms seems like a decent band-aid.
The real band aid would be to enable users to blacklist sites that they don't want to see. I often search for things and come across the same spam sites that I do not want, over and over.
After that a distributed trust model should be built so that users can share blacklists of spam sites.
It is not as simple as that. There are many countries in which the official work day is less than the real work day. As an example, in Japan no-one leaves before the boss leaves (so it can be longer than the official time).
Also, in some countries there are many people working for themselves (such as in small businesses). These people generally work more than the official time.
I had a family member work for 14 hours a week (10 hours saturday and sunday) while starting their own business (this went on for two years).
Small business owners break the law a lot and work more than the allotted time.
> It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock.[1] It was also arguably the world's first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies
> Statistically, the VOC eclipsed all of its rivals in the Asia trade. Between 1602 and 1796 the VOC sent almost a million Europeans to work in the Asia trade on 4,785 ships, and netted for their efforts more than 2.5 million tons of Asian trade goods. By contrast, the rest of Europe combined sent only 882,412 people from 1500 to 1795, and the fleet of the English (later British) East India Company, the VOC’s nearest competitor, was a distant second to its total traffic with 2,690 ships and a mere one-fifth the tonnage of goods carried by the VOC. The VOC enjoyed huge profits from its spice monopoly through most of the 1600s.
> The Dutch East India Company remained an important trading concern for almost two centuries, paying an 18% annual dividend for almost 200 years.
Yeah, my country has worse drivers than Greece (trust me).
Here is how I cross the road in Japan: I wait at a place that I want to cross, but I turn my body away from the road. That way they think I am just standing there and drive past (instead of awkwardly stopping, etc...).
A lot of Japanese people that I've talked to don't have driving licenses. One person specifically said that it was because she was afraid of hurting others. That is quite different from my country's SUV style entitlement.
I came year wanting to say exactly the same thing.
I walk each day past a primary school and all kids arrive unassisted. There are however teachers welcoming them at the gates and one police officer at the road crossing. But other than that they are on their own.
In Japan, motorcar drivers actually seem scared of pedestrians. I have difficulty crossing the road. In my country you usually stand still beside the road and wait for the cars to pass (for an opening). Here if you even look like you want to cross the road at some point in the future, the cars stop.
> Greek shipbuilding was probably on its way to China anyways (just like US steel making, and uncounted other
It doesn't have to be that way. Japan has some of the highest labour rates and expensive electricity. It has to import both iron ore and coal. Yet it is home to the very profitable steel mill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Steel
Firstly, a lot of studies (esp. in the USA) shows that corporal punishment have negative outcomes. This is because they do not control for other variables (such as socio-economic circumstances). Poorer parents often hit their kids more (and many studies do make a distinction between parental abuse and responsible punishment).
This is the same as the “powerlines causes cancer” research (people living near powerlines tend to be poorer and more prone to cancer). And powerlines is not even an ideological viewpoint!
The problem is that I can give you a slew of papers saying that “corporal punishment has no detrimental effects” and you can give me another slew saying it has detrimental effects. Such internet discussions will not go anywhere (the same as with the death penalty or gun rights). Perhaps I was wrong to bring this up in YCNews (since this is not the forum for such debates).
In any case, in the country of Singapore they have less crime and fewer problems that 99% of Western countries. Yet they have very strict laws (including corporal and capital punishment for drug offences).
EDIT: The original point I wanted to make was this:
In the USA, tough punishment only comes after the criminal has firmly established his bad behaviour. Any pet owner knows that at that stage it is the most difficult to change set behaviour.
You have silly things such as three strikes laws. Why? The third time that behaviour is fixed.
If that same person were punished severely for his first crime (however minor) he would think twice about breaking the law.
That is how it works in Singapore - the first crime is punished hard, and the behaviour doesn't re-occur.
That addresses the consequences of a problem and not the root causes. It is important to stop the cause of petty vandalism.
I can take a bet that if most countries had corporal punishment and applied it readily and liberally to vandalism cases, both vandalism and other offenses would be stopped.
In the west people continue to do crimes (and let off) until they do a major crime (when it is too late to change entrenched behaviour).
> which isn't free, and the other is that customers strongly prefer to shop where free parking is available.
It is not just that. The mere act of shopping at most stores requires a car.
In Japan for example all fairly big items (such as chairs, etc...) gets delivered. You do not buy 24 cans of coke and a liter of mayonnaise and take it on the train with you. You buy one ridiculously small can of coke at a small (and expensive) convenience store near you.
So, I wouldn't be as quick as to require all people shopping to not come with a car.
Living in the suburbs has its advantages - cheap storage space, etc... So you can actually buy in bulk.
I agree. Reddit&Digg have their own (what I can only describe as troll sites) such as DailyKos.
IRL, that is generally what I like about Europeans (or at least my impression of them) - they have more mild beliefs. A lot of Americans seem to have very strong predetermined beliefs.
Especially the handicapped and elderly like bikes (or not). A good train system (such in Japan) is much better). That way even children and elderly can travel long distances.
> Ok so now we're being nostalgic about fucking apartheid?
You are completely misrepresenting my views (again)! It seems that you are disinterested in having a coherent argument, and just like to impress your very warped views onto others.
> I'm sooo sorry you had to start treating black people like human beings.
You know that I was 2 when Mandela was released? I had no voting power. But let’s use your argument on yourself: you are personally responsible for the deaths of one million people in Afghanistan and Iraq (hey, at least you could have voted).
You are also responsible for American slavery and Vietnam. You deserve to be poor and never have a right to anything. You are also responsible for the firebombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
By the way. Why are American Indians still living in reservations? You are responsible for propping up dictators (e.g. Saudi Arabia).
Don't be so quick as to wish other people's rights away for past wrongs. You will find then that Americans do not deserve any.
> At least we know what's really bugging you.
Whats bugging me is people like you which form impressions on little information but are so sure about themselves (even when they are wrong). Every argument I made, I fully backed up with statistics.
You try the emotional line. A lot of people (like yourself) like to simplify complex situations (hey 11 national languages – SA can’t be that complex!) into simple little black and white views – unable to have any nuanced views.
Such simplifications only led to pain and suffering – and some genocide (e.g. Gukurahundi).
> but most of what I've read indicates that there isn't a ton of discrimination against white people, especially considering recent history.
Then you read interesting material. There is quite a bit discrimination against white people. If the second most powerful person in the ANC calls for genocide against white people, don’t you think that there is no discrimination?
I’ve given you numerous examples. Here is one more: for any empowerment scheme, companies are forced to sell stock. A white person cannot buy it – yet a black person can. Here is another: A white person cannot get a loan at the Land Bank. Yet the former deputy president could get a multimillion rand loan for a new car - even though he is not a farmer.
Most people in the West take quite a bit of joy out of poor white people in South Africa. I was surprised at the level of hate among American citizens for white people. Just as you are cheerleaders for Mugabe during the 80ies and 90ies, you are now a cheerleader for the ANC government.
> Trying to claim that whites have it worse seems pretty tough to me, how do you quantify 60 years of institutionalized racism?
Yet the current government is worse than Apartheid. Let’s compare the fate of black Africans now and during Apartheid.
The Mbeki government refused to give ARVs to HIV positive people. Most white people wanted the government to do that. The policy by the black Thabo Mbeki government cost the lives of at least 365,000 people (mostly black). It seems that for USA citizens, black people killing black people are OK! (I did not even year call for sanctions for a thing that was clearly genocide).
The petty Mbeki government also refused Nevaripine to HIV positive mothers. A few pills (costing less than $1) could have prevented many AIDS infections among newborns. You know that it was white South Africans who fought tooth and nail to force the government to do that?
Life expectancy fell almost 1 year for each year after 1994. Life expectancy among all South Africans dropped 14.32 years from 1995 to 2009.
That is the black government that did it. Here we use 1995 stats for 1994 since a new statistical regime was instituted.
http://jae.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/5/813
2003 Broad def. Unemployment: 29.4% 2003 Broad def. Unemployment: 42.7%
1995 Narrow def. Unemployment: 17.0% 2003 Narrow def. Unemployment 30%
Unemployment increased from 2003 to 2010 too! In the 60ies and 70ies (the heyday of Apartheid before sanctions) unemployment among all populations was between 4.5% and 6.5%.
Real income also decreased significantly (1995 to 2003 period):
Agricultural work: 11.9% decline in real earnings
Domestic work: 19.1% decline in real earnings
Informal work: 82.5% decline in real earnings.
The education system also collapsed. Three leading authorities on education (one of them Steve Biko’s wife) said that the quality of schooling significantly decreased since the end of Apartheid.
> "Asmal is a man who believes he knows everything. What he did was worse than what the apartheid regime did to our education system," he was quoted as saying.
> The whole truth and reconciliation thing seems to have gone about as well as anything ever, considering the alternatives.
No it hasn’t – except for ANC fat cats. The country is in serious risk of destabilising. Recent “service delivery” and anti-Zimbabwean riots have shown that. How much do you think the poverty can increase before South Africa destabilises?
> Zimbabwe, you'd have a definite point. There's an example of bonafide economic discrimination against white people.
You know that South Africa is ten years (maybe 15) behind Zimbabwe?
Everything that happened in Zimbabwe is happening in South Africa now. [There have been calls to take white people’s farms]( http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-04-09-the-militant-pacifist), calls to nationalise the mines (this will happen in 5 years). [The ANC’s number two man has called for white farmers]( http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20100310041938251C30...) to be killed (the murder rate for white farmers is already 6 times the national average – i.e. 300 per 100,000 per year).
Btw, I have not even talked about the fact that violent deaths tripled since the end of Apartheid.
> In most countries on earth (and I believe this is true in south africa as well), it's just plain easier to be white.
This is your naivety speaking. A poor white person in South Africa is fucked. Here is why:
- It is impossible to get any type of government job (includes military, government owned institutions such as Transnet, Eskom, Telkom, etc…).
- White people are not eligible for any scholarships or bursaries (government or otherwise).
- Entrance into university is determined by racial quotas. For a white person going to a fancy private school, it is possible – but not for a poor white person that has to go to a government school.
- It is very difficult for a young white person to get a job in the private industry. Because companies have quotas, they have to preferentially hire black people. White people with scare skills can get a job – but for manual labour, it is easy to preferentially higher a black person.
- Rich White and black people look down on poor white people.
- Many middle income white people received “severance packages” to make space for black people (both private and government jobs). This is basically their pension as a lump sum. Many had to start business in order to survive – some made it, some were screwed. Starting your life from square 1 when you are 50 is not easy.
> So good for you for achieving whatever you have in life and overcoming whatever obstacles you've overcome,
Nice sarcasm. The point I tried to make was that, if just one little thing went different in my life, I would have been fucked.
> but the world's racial intolerance of white people isn't one of those obstacles.
You assume that the world is exactly like where you are from. The problem is that SA is a black majority country with a black government. So their intolerance towards white people is much greater (than for instance the USA government).
The difference between rich and skilled white people and poor white people is that skilled white people still have a skill that is needed (so they are not as expendable as poor white people).
I also guess that you would not view a leading figure in the ruling government (and probably next president) encouraging genocide of white people.
---
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that hate for white people in South Africa – especially Afrikaans people is pretty high in the USA. It seems that the consensus is that white people do not belong in Africa and if they are poor it is either their fault or they deserve it.
The problem is that the poor are a lot less socially mobile and it is impossible for them to immigrate. They are simply stuck between a hostile government and bad economic situation.
<rant>
And who would this “common enemy” be? The Spiel that white people considered black people their enemies during Apartheid is a bit incorrect (yet a popular sentiment in the west).
It is ironic that statistically, the plight of the majority of black people is now far worse in SA than during Apartheid (life expectancy, income inequality, unemployment, infancy mortality, matric pass rate, TIMSS score, etc…). Apartheid (i.e. separate development and rule for all ethnic and cultural groups) as an ideology is failed (mostly due to industrial development which caused South Africa to become a scrambled egg of people). Yet the ideology of full democracy (i.e. tyranny of the majority) is also spectacularly failing. Yet no one would acknowledge the latter failings.
<\rant>
> I'm somewhat convinced we're at the point in the US where the opposition party (either one) would sabotage the plan for short term political gain.
But in any case, I digress. You are right about this part. Everyone is NIMBY. The problem is also that using coal to make fuel would release CO2. And this is counter to the ideology of the far left (which only wants non-practical solutions to be implemented).
The USA landed people on the moon in less than a decade. I am sure that if they put their minds to it, they can expand nuclear power generation significantly (to reduce CO2) and start to make a significant part of their liquid fuel requirement from coal.