i get the point that you're attacking an unfair caricature, but i spent a while working out of a call centre in ottawa, canada that took a lot of in calls from the southern states and i heard a lot of people with really exaggerated accents - so exaggerated that i could legitimately barely understand them. it wasn't because of a bad connection or static or whatever, it was because we were simply speaking different languages. words i'd never heard before, verb usages that didn't make any sense to me - the whole thing.
ironically, the idea at the time was that canadians were ideal call center employees for the american market because we were cheaper (due to our dollar being around $0.60 usd at the time, which has since changed drastically) and we spoke english that americans could understand - unlike asians or latin americans.
but, i have to be honest - i would personally have a much easier time with an asian accent than i would with a deep south one because, while asian accents might be broken, they're not a structurally different language. the feeling was sometimes mutual - not just "aboot. hahaha.", but "i don't understand what you said because your grammar is foreign to me".
it really surprised the hell out of me, actually. i think i learned that we're not that far from "deep south american" being a different language than "english".
you, on the other hand, just speak a bit slower than i do.
fascists are usually pretty good at lining up behind big money interests when it comes to it. the immigration rhetoric is cause for serious concern (although it's unfortunately true that the function of immigration is to decrease wages, the scorn should be placed at the capitalists that game the system for profit and not the workers trying to survive), but it ultimately serves the interests of the elite because it distracts from the root causes and keeps the violence at street level.
i know what the rhetoric on the euro is, but i think it's just that. the central bankers would be overjoyed to see her (and the far right, overall) win an election.
t's really the oldest trick in the book in europe.
the economy goes down, blame the jews/gypsies/muslims/turks. that way, the angry masses attack them instead of the church/king/parliament/bank. from their perspective, that often solves two problems at once.
but europe also has a low population growth rate, which creates a systemic problem for capitalists that always seek conditions where the number of possible workers far exceeds the number of actually employed ones. there's a lot of very good reasons why that growth rate has stayed low and why europeans should seek to keep it low. however, the people of europe cannot have it both ways without abolishing capitalism - either they need to increase their growth rate, or they need to accept immigration, or they need to seize the means of production for themselves.
---
IamMANnumber1
Germany has brought Europe to its knees 3 times in the last century.
deathtokoalas
"germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years.
chocomalk
Wow do you people ever learn history? Most of Europe's historical woes are attributed elsewhere.
deathtokoalas
dude, it's just like when the visigoths invaded spain, it's just on a different level of abstraction.
chocomalk
Dude it's like saying Europe is not Norway, Sweden, England, France, the Netherlands, Austria etc...all descendants of Germanic tribes. It's like saying Western Germany is Eastern France or vice versa. You are looking at an orgy and finding a few parts you don't like without recognizing the attaching parts. Meanwhile the Romans, the Turks, , The Brits, The Russians, THE GREAT GAME, the(insert name)....
deathtokoalas
i'm not sure you can even make sense of that, so i'm not going to try to.
let's try again.
"germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years.
now, think it through and understand the truth in it.
chocomalk
"Europe" is a relatively new concept, not one to be assigned 2000 years of existence. "Germany" was "Germania". the majority of what we call Europe today, the rest was Rome. So what is your point? That most of the original Germanic tribes that went on to become present day Europe because of a migration somehow tried to conquer itself? Technically the Visigoths would be attacking Rome not Europe. And technically Rome was the biggest aggressor. "Germania" was fairly consistent for about 1500 years regardless of it's name. The rest was Rome, or what was left of it after they fell and "other". The East is another matter. Anyway, you are still missing how everyone was trying to conquer everything..."everything" meaning what used to be Rome/Germania.
deathtokoalas
your understanding of history is a little bit confused, but it doesn't really matter because very little of what you're saying is in any way relevant (and the junkers that built the modern german state were actually not germans but prussians).
however,
1) europe is a geographic area and has existed as it does since roughly the end of the last ice age.
2) eastern europe was in fact largely built by east germans. as i feel you may be confused by a reference to the former soviet state, i need to separate between the east germans (who lived in modern day poland and ukraine and included groups like goths and lombards), the north germans (of scandinavia) and the west germans (of what we now call germany, france and england)
3) germans are not indigenous to the area we now call germany. rather, they moved south near the beginning of the historical period and conquered and displaced indigenous celts.
4) the continuum of tribes in europe were migratory and did not really respect national boundaries. at any given point, you would find not just germans in the area now known as germany but also celts, slavs, iranians and people from much further east, including huns and turkish-speaking people.
5) you'll note i put "germany" in quotes, which was to note that it did not exist as a nation-state 2500 years ago. however, the idea of a german nation united by language, religion and culture is not a new idea. our word for german comes from a greek association of odin with hermes. the germans were those who worshipped hermes. today, we think more in terms of linguistic groupings, of which i mentioned in (1).
6) my point is that "germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years.
chocomalk
Prussian = Germanic, not sure where you are going with that lol.
1. Your vision of this "Europe" as a geological location does not take into account the artificial borders that exclude Russia/Asia etc. We are discussing pre civilized Europe during a time known as the great migration. A time when Europe did not exist as a set location and people came from all over. Sure, same rocks, but it's a whole lot bigger if you add all the stuff it is attached too without those convenient borders.
2. Germanic tribes, is there a point? And at what point are they not "Germanic" even though they hail from the same stock? You mention Goths as if they are not Germanic.
3. Yes they moved south as the Celts moved west, neither were "indigenous. And you quoted a 2000 year timeline, the Celts, what we know of them, predate that and were mainly affected by Rome. They were pushed, Germanic tribes were pushed, Slavic tribes were pushed... they all did pushing as well.
4. This is subject to a very long timeline, but it is pretty safe to say that regardless of who was ruling who, the lines have remained consistent for at least 1000 years give or take and were pretty much formed prior to that.
5. Funny we are communicating in German? No in English...why is that? Because there are other players in this you are not addressing. So the next language most likely for us to speak in would be German?...no it would be French. Although influenced by German, we consider many European languages to be "Latin" based. How could that be? You say this as if it is uniquely German.
6. Your point ignores everyone else, this makes you a bigot. In the same boat as Germany would be every tribe/culture you mention and some you have not. So is there a point? Besides being a bigot and pointing out one guilty party among many? deathtokoalas
i don't feel you're following me, and i'm a little bored with your continued responses. i'm not seeking to build any sort of comparison or produce any kind of normative statements, i'm simply pointing out that "germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years. and the prussians, now extinct, were balts.
chocomalk
No, I follow you, you are a bigot. And "Prussian" ≠ "Old Prussian".
deathtokoalas
now that i've blocked that idiot, i want to reiterate my point: that "germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years.
i'm not sure what's going on outside. when i was out there, it
sounded like a race track around the corner. air show? several lawn
mowers? don't know. but, sitting inside, the waveforms of the different
motors are expanding and overlapping with each other and harmonizing,
and it sounds like an ambient noise festival.
maybe i just wish i was at an ambient noise festival.
it's nice out.
hurry up, customs.
the russians are talking tough about retaliation for escalation in the east; yet, poroshenko reacted to the airport seizure in strongman fashion. whatever the law says, it's a show of force, and there's little doubt that it was directed at russia. poroshenko is of course a new entity at this level, and i don't claim to understand him well, but i can't believe he would be foolish enough to mean the show of force to be a challenge. rather, it's a message that he will defend himself if provoked.
that doesn't negate the russian threats, and they ought to be taken seriously. they have repeatedly warned that the kind of escalation poroshenko put down will be responded to harshly, for the precise reason that they do not want a full war. for all poroshenko's intent to send a message of territorial integrity and whatnot, the russians have made it clear that they are going to control the area for the foreseeable future. they've also made it clear that they want it done peacefully.
so, they're not going to invade. that would be foolish, and everybody outside of the western press can see that. maybe they can, too, and it's just dramatic television.
they're not going to cut off gas supplies, either. that's a punitive attack on the ukrainian people, not on the ukrainian government. putin understands the difference.
he's not stalin.
rather, he's a pussy cat, as i keep saying. he wants to bully his way forward, but he doesn't want to actually hurt anybody.
however. and this is a big however.
i think it exceedingly unlikely that the russians are just going to sit there for the next ten years shooting down helicopters amidst heavy casualties. as the clear aim is to minimize casualties, they are going to respond somehow. and, the pattern is through a show of force, and the use of the *threat* of that force (rather than it's actualization) to seize control of what it wants.
so, how does putin find a way to bully ukraine into grounding it's planes under the threat of severe consequence? i can think of a few things. they are drastic. i would prefer not to give anybody any ideas.
but note the threat of serious consequence, and that it should be taken seriously.
i don't trust internet polls. the sampling simply isn't random. worse, there's an age bias that directly contradicts known voting patterns (older people are far more likely to vote).
i'm not expecting significantly different results than the last election - liberals and conservatives around 35 (+/-) and the ndp in the low 20s. it's going to be about turnout.
i'm not voting. i don't know the riding well enough. but it's probably clear that i'm supporting the liberals over the ndp.
most politicians are a little loopy, but i'm strongly convinced that horwath is a clinical psychopath.
hey, i'm in dwight duncan's old seat.
it's a liberal-ndp race, here, which just stresses the need to understand local issues, which i don't. well, in most circumstances, that's how i'd look at it, anyways.
see, i'm not happy about an ndp candidate attacking the green energy act. yes, electricity has gone up, and people are upset, but it's a boneheaded analysis to blame it on the decision to shut down coal plants, rather than these off the wall market-based electricity policies. i expect the ndp to present an articulate solution that argues for public ownership of utilities (and explicitly against running utilities for private profit), not some hamfisted, cursory nonsense. for the armchair accountants in the audience, how about an argument that improving air quality offsets health costs? if there's no longer any idea of sharing social burdens in the ndp's outlook, if it's just self interest and lowering costs, what's their purpose in the existing political spectrum?
....and i like the idea of high speed rail heading out to toronto. it would make it feasible to spend the day there to catch a festival show.
i don't really care about what they say about jobs, because i understand that the existing political reality is that the government cannot create jobs. it's a neat trick they've pulled off to put the responsibility in the hands of the private sector (we're knee deep in the neo-liberal era, folks), thereby eliminating any control they have over the issue, then run election platforms on it, as though they didn't relinquish control. just once i'd like to see a current politician take the podium and state:
"the era where government policy could create jobs ended in the 90s. we campaigned on it. you voted us in to cut the links. we did it. now, you're on your own. sorry. "
beyond that, the structural realities of mass job creation not just here but in a thousand mile radius are just not feasible. the idea that we can create all these jobs for all these people isn't realistic, so we need to adjust how we think; voters need to get it through their heads that the choice is between having some people on welfare and some people working full time and having everybody working part time and also living on welfare. which is actually what socialism is *really* all about. so, it's socialism or welfare and we have to deal with it. a thousand sun readers just had their brain explode. i'm ok with that being a choice, too, so long as the income differential is meaningful. well, it's a choice, right? better than being sent to the walmart under threat of starvation. the choice is simple: do you want more money than you have time or do you want more time than you have money? and, knowing full well that demanding employment is going to hurt somebody else that needs the money more than me, i'll happily choose time over money.
so, it's mostly meh. the ndp will support the rail plan. and the liberals are simply better on the environment right now.
it's a shame. the province needs to reclaim it's resources. it's going to happen sooner or later. the ndp is really missing the boat on articulating a vision of social democracy at precisely the time that it's needed, and at precisely the time it may actually be embraced.
because people really *are* pissed about rising costs, they're just being misled about the causes, and the ndp are not helping them understand them.
also, it's a shame the liberals couldn't find a mccoy.
yeah. it's the point. she can't beat the liberals straight up. she knows it. her sole purpose is power, so it makes sense for her to help the conservatives win in the short run, in the hopes that it sets up a direct ndp-conservative battle.
russia's more of a market economy than most of europe is, steve. also, vlad would probably dig your new monument. i think he's put a few like it up, himself.
in truth, harper's latest dumb comments are incredibly insensitive to the millions of russians who look to putin to keep the communists out of power. 'cause that's vlad's real competition, after all - not these kleptocratic fascist "liberal" billionaires that the west wants to let back into yeltsin's liquor cabinet.
steve and vlad are actually very similar, kindred spirits of a sort. if steve ever decides to pull his head out of his ass and gain some kind of grasp on reality, he'd see his ideological brethren across the arctic ocean.
but, he'd rather hit the bunker and play with his plasticine soldiers, and send them off to fight his imagined boogeyman. do it for the gipper, steve-o.
i actually think it's fully plausible that steve has been left in the dark and fed propaganda and doesn't really have the slightest idea of what is going on on the ground in ukraine.
nice walk yesterday, although it knocked me out. i guess i needed a
good night's worth of sleep. it's been a long time since i can remember a
good 9 hours in one stretch.
those cheap shoes aren't
working out. i suppose i shouldn't be surprised, although i also think
i'm abusing them. they probably would have lasted the summer if i didn't
take them on these periodic six or eight hour walks. as it is, they're
already softening up on the bottom. i did pick up a pair of skate shoes a
few months ago, but wanted to save them until the spring rains stopped.
the whole purpose of the cheap shoes was really to wear in spring and
fall. so, i guess it's time to switch over. the cheapies were two for
one, so i guess i have another pair for the fall. looking at them now,
it's pretty obvious they weren't really made for walking.
i
got this rare craving for a burger last night. it's something that hits
every few months. raw meat is not allowed in the house, so it's not
something that's in my regular diet. the few times a year i want a
burger, i go buy one. i remembered seeing a local burger place, so i
took a walk around the corner....
"motor burger". well,
i'm in detroit. sounds like a good place for what i imagine a local
detroit burger should be: greasy and messy, with a side of transmission
fluid, but that's kind of what i wanted.
it turns out
it was actually a sort of bourgeois gourmet burger palace, which makes
these weird upper class burgers out of goat cheese and gluten-free buns,
then charges upwards of $15 for them. i was tired, and jonesing hard,
so i forked out the $22 for a bacon cheeseburger and a non-hydrogenated,
baked, organically grown poutine.