bleeding heart

It may well be "true that non union environments are far more likely to recognize performances on either end of the spectrum," but since it is your claim, the onus is on you to offer something a little more expansive than you have (ie nothing). And you have not begun to address (aside from some obvious, demonstrable errors) my central point: that millions upon millions of low-wage workers in what is ostensibly the most "meritocratic" region on Earth (North America) are working in a situation in which merit plays little to no part whatsoever. If it did play more of a part, it would undoubtedly be better for them, though the real "meritocratic" entities (shareholders, et al) obviously oppose such ideas strenuously, probably in a ways that you personally do not. That you can relegate such a significant portion of the labour class as irrelevant to your point about "recognizing performance" is striking. Even for those (and I'm not talking about you) who consider masses of low-paid humanity to be essentially losers, who get what they "deserve" based on laughable notions of "market principles"....the fact that the "meritocratic" workforce is at least partially a monumental myth speaks for itself.

NY is an awesome city, I agree. Haven't been there in 20 years, but the memory is sweet.

Good question.

Overthere: Where do you get your "Walmart only" retort...since I explicitly argued this was not the case. I'm merely properly "greying" the faith-based, intensely ideologically-driven notion that "non-union" organizations are inherently "meritocratic." It's such a massive overgeneralization that it's as "true" as "all union employees are lazy" (also a religious belief).

Some people like Glocks and high-powered weapons for similar reasons that people like lots of things. It's a harmless diversion for almost every enthusiast.. Elsewhere, both Kimmy and Derek (both of whom support restrictions, btw) have argued quite convincingly on the subject. I remember a strong and reasoned argument from BC_2004 on the subject, too. For the record, and to be clear, I do agree that there is a gun problem (or problems, plural). But surely each restriction (or lack thereof) should be looked at discretely and rationally.

What I meant by my second point was, well, a direct response to your criticism: ie that European countries "sat back and did nothing"...implying, by definition, that you think they should have intervened. Meaning that they should have intervened against the US, UK, and the others who were actively engaged in state terrorism of a size that no Islamist group could currently hope to match. Again, you lamented that they sat back and did nothing....against the terrorists: which in this case, included the powerful allies.

Ok...got to admit, nice catch.

And the work environment at Walmart is not especially collegial---which is part of the reason it's so controversial. The controversies aren't all union propaganda, I hope you realize. To be fair to Walmart, it is not especially different from most similar jobs. It has become rather symbolic of them. (The remuneration is actually less than at many, such as Costco and Target...so your friend's personal experience is not the usual one.) Most associates make about ONE dollar over minimum wage. Management depends on the store, obviously. My foray there had more decent than indecent managers....it was the actual corporate policy that was ugly and demoralizing.... ....and it is intentionally demoralizing. Which, to me, makes the the preditable defense of the company, from people who have never worked there, baffling, if not galling. At any rate, as per your penultimate statement, is not clear that being a "hard worker and superb employee" makes little to no difference in compensation at walmart and its peers? And that since this is self-evidently true, it raises the question of why you'd point it out...implying that it does? At any rate, since we're offering personal anecdotes: which do you think I'm likely to take more seriously: my own personal experience, or the second-hand sources you offer? But both our anecdotes are rather beside the point, admittedly. The point is that merit does NOT play a serious role in the sorts of jobs that make up truly massive amounts of employment for the lowest-wage workers. So unless we become selective about which parts of the private sector we're discussing (deriding many tens of millions of workers' experience as irrelevant, since their lives don't fit neatly into ECON 101), the "meritocracy" notion is problematic...to be highly generous. (Incidentally, did you know that the term "meritocracy" was coined by a satirist to lampoon the idea? )

Like I said, I saw the same thing everywhere. Sure, sometimes individual achievement was recognized...sometimes not. Same with, shall we say, comparatively apathetic performances. And no, obviously sometimes meritocracy works out...of course. Just as plenty of unionized employees are stellar workers...a heretical notion, I understand, but only for the--ideologically inclined. As for my experience--the most salient one I was talking about was Walmart. Not primarily famous for financial problems...and certainly little of anything there is based on a meritocratic performance record, as about a million aggrieved "associates" would inform you. (Quietly,of course, lest they get fired.)

Exactly, you nailed it.

It's not a "Jewish thing." Anti-Semitism is simply one of the many, many problems with the far-right autocrats, who were leading members of the recent opposition and are now ensconced within the Ukrainian political system. They're now "the good guys," whereas a whiff of even possible anti-Semitism in other discussion is met with a lot more hostility. I'm not completely sure why the disconnect....but I suspect it's because when the glorious, inherently noble "West" decides to back somebody....by God, we will call them "good guys" no matter what their natural inclinations might be.

Sure, Rue, I'm not disagreeing with you fundamentally. (I also agree that Stalin was as bad as Hitler...Hitler has come to symbolize the awful evil of aggressive and murderous dictatorial regimes....but plenty of men have fit to varying degrees into a similar mold.) I'm only saying that the rise of neo-fascist anti-semites into high positions of Ukrainian political power--a concern for reasonable people through much of Europe, and for quite some time--is not something to be cavalier about. They saw their opportunity for political power and they seized it. This isn't an excuse for Russian behavior; I don't even hint at such a thing. I'm saying that the idea that the Ukrainian government are "the good guys" is a simplistic notion which verges on apologetics for Jew-hating fascist sympathizers. Count me out. I have no problem at all with the parts of the Ukrainian government who aren't a bunch of opportunist, racist thugs. Only those who are...and they hold high-level positions.

Rue, Just as a matter of clarity, why would you bring up East Timor? Major Western powers (most notably the US and UK) were specifically, materially, and intentionally involved in supporting the slaughter of the East Timorese. That's the opposite of "sitting back and doing nothing." As for the European countries who were not involved in the killings and intentional mass starvation...sure, they sat back and did nothing. Do you propose that they should have gone to war with the United States and the UK? Even if they had the will, that would have been disastrous, wouldn't it?

Wayward Son is correct. It's easy--if still useful--to accept the "challenges" on matters of which one is already skeptical or dubious. What's difficult and more important is to extrapolate, to be willing to wade through matters of one's own assumptions--and even cherished beliefs. This goes beyond even "science" in its strictest parameters, and can be helpful in interrogating lots of assumptions about political matters, as well, so long as results can be evidence-based.

Bob, The idea that ticketing is "egalitarian" is based on class-based assumptions: namely, that if the justice system (even in relatively small ways, such as ticketing) hurts the less well-off more than it hurts the better well-off...that this is "Fair" or "egalitarian." Indeed, it is not. That is, if a person of means is ticketed, it is only nominally a punishment...but there is no de facto punishment, because paying the ticket has no financial repercussions. It is nothing. He has been "punished" in the nominal sense of the word, but it doesn't affect his life. Whereas for a person who cannot really afford the ticket, it can be a more serious problem. The punishment, as doled out by legal authorities, is greater--based on precisely the same offense. In most realms of consumer life, this is not inherently unfair. There is no reason why everyone should be able to afford the same goods, the same lifestyle, what have you. But in the justice system, a de facto unfairness--that a punishment affects people who lack money more than those that do--is intrinsically in opposition to "justice" in any sense of the word. Obviously we have learned to internalize the idea that even the law should affect people differently....based 100% and only on income.

Just to clarify, Bob, I wasn't speaking specifically of the situation at hand at all. (The thread subject, so my bad.) I was talking about the practice of ticketing in general. And never mind that it's also inherently a class-based system of greater punishment for the poor(er). By definition.

As for "good guys" and "bad guys"....well, I have no problem at all viewing Putin as a "bad guy." However, it appears that many of the critics of Putin consider the anti-Semitic, far-right fascist sympathizers in the Ukrainian government to be the "good guys." (Apparently, they're also the ones who started the Parliamentary brawl, by the way.) A real triumph of propaganda! Practically a textbook case.

There seems to be a broad and multipartisan agreement on the inherent corruption of ticketing. Interesting.

Well, cyber, as I think you alluded, there exists the perennial problem of class and/or institutionalized bias whenever we discuss poverty and crime. In the linked study I mentioned, it was relayed that youth from disparate economic backgrounds were questioned about their own illegal behaviours--with the promise of anonymity and no reprisals. And it so turned out that middle class youth and youth from wealthier families did not clearly commit less (or less serious) crime. The poor are more likely to be arrested, of course; but also more likely for the matter to go to court (instead of parents buying their way out of trouble, with money or influence); and certainly more likely to be prosecuted.

I would agree with you--or at least assume your argument was principled--if you were to state that ALL forms of "social engineering" were to be abandoned. But you don't. You ignore by far and away the biggest one, and focus on trivialities. You mention 1. "bilingualism"...(?).now, how, for example here in New Brunswick, could bilingualism not be something a teacher talks about? It's not some ideology....it's the plain, unequivocal fact on the ground. And for that matter, what, exactly, do you suppose teachers are instructing their students about on this subject? 2. "Mulitculturalism"....what do you mean? Should they say we aren't a multicultural society? Should they denigrate it? Ignore it altogether? 3. "Sexuality"....what do you mean? What is the "social engineering" that occurs...obviously you think it is a central concern....but what--exactly what--IS your concern? You don't tell us. At any rate, you ignore the far more prevalent, ingrained forms of incessant social engineering....the outright indoctrination of our youth into nationalist and bigoted Canadian supremacy. Why? For example, how many history teachers, just as a guess, do you think have informed their students of Canadian history re the nation of Haiti? That we were an integral part of the illegal overthrow of a popularly-elected leader, and his replacement by vicious authoritarians leached from the heavily class-conscious sectors of the minority Haitian elite? I mean...that's history....Canada's open detestation for democracy and sovereignty, even as we have the unmitigated balls to moan about Russia's recent (far less horrific) behavior. This is a failure of teachers...of the sort that teachers' most vociferous critics never, ever, ever point out, exposing their own lack of reflection and hostility to ugly facts. This is opposition to truth, and it is unadulterated indoctrination, and propaganda through omission. (Probably the most effective kind.) Sure, doubtless a tiny handful of teachers did mention it, probably to the spitting ire of parents, whose patriotism makes them moral cretins and intellectual weaklings. Because the issue extrapolates exactly from this point. Patriotism often DOES make people morons, and ethical cowards. And yet students ARE taught nationalist "virtues" [sic]...a far more insidious form of "social engineering" than the ones you mention but refrain from spelling out.

This exact point is briefly navigated in the very good piece that WestCoastRunner linked to.

For a show called "Girls," Hannah's love interest Adam has shaped up to be the most interesting character. It's pretty evident that Dunham likes men; whereas with the writers of Sex and the City....that's not so clear. (They loved men who were tycoons, maybe.....)

No, he doesn't believe it. Because that's silly.

Just so. Not too many of us consider the prospect of Albertan separation to be a serious concern...because Albertans don't consider it to be a serious concern. Therefore, it isn't.