|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| If they aren't well governed, than we certainly didn't help considering how we've been interfering with them since Monroe. |
I don't exactly disagree, but the fact that these countries were (and are) so vulnerable to such meddling is no accident. Well-governed nations are generally more resistant to external meddling. The world has always been a place where outsiders will meddle and take advantage if it's easy to do so. Making it challenging to do so is a huge part of the point of governance in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| If they aren't well governed, than we certainly didn't help considering how we've been interfering with them since Monroe. |
I don't exactly disagree, but the fact that these countries were (and are) so vulnerable to such meddling is no accident. Well-governed nations are generally more resistant to external meddling. The world has always been a place where outsiders will meddle and take advantage if it's easy to do so. Making it challenging to do so is a huge part of the point of governance in the first place. |
Yes, I agree. I wouldn't blame all the bad governance on America, of course. I would say that Latin America didn't have much of chance considering its early history, and how big America has always been in comparison. Discovering about our involvement in Latin America during the Cold War when I was young was the first thing that really disillusioned me about America and the world, and I still get a visceral reaction when I think of some of the things that happened that we sponsored, so for me it is a bit much for Americans to complain about Latin American governance. I don't think that the Mexican community has had a negative effect on our politics, or if they have it hasn't been a major one. If anything, most are probably more socially conservative and traditional than the average American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I don't think that the Mexican community has had a negative effect on our politics, or if they have it hasn't been a major one. |
They're still a minority in the electorate, and that minority's political voice is further diminished through gerrymandering. What would be the influence a much larger (non-gerrymandered into neutrality) Latin American voting block would have on our politics? It seems to me that the best source of data on that would be to look at the countries which they themselves govern; whose constitutions and laws reflect their cultural character.
| Leon wrote: |
| If anything, most are probably more socially conservative and traditional than the average American. |
That's true, and their cultural traditions are close enough to mainstream America's that their presence in society is not necessarily destabilizing (though racial tensions can arise). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If anything, most are probably more socially conservative and traditional than the average American.
|
Their life outcomes do not reflect a group that is conservative (restrained). Though there is more going on, as Charles Murray explains in Coming Apart. More intelligent people live generally traditionalist lives (stay at home mothers, stable marriages, low alcohol consumption/drugs, etc). Less intelligent people do *whatever* unless there is a very very strong cultural pull in one direction. The pull in America is towards the underclass, so that is where they're headed. A big chunk of whites too.
I really recommend Coming Apart.
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/05/are-hispanics-that-socially-conservative/#.U76UIvldV7E
In California and Texas and Florida they vote liberal. Less older Cubans who are mad at Castro.
The biggest disruption, and this is why the Dems have left the southern border basically open, is in the inevitability of a Dem Texas federally. This will mean the USA will be a one party state, with all decisions being made within the one party. As it is in California. This is so obvious that even The Simpsons made fun of it in the second or third last episode of the most recent season. This is the desired outcome. A 1 party state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-11/classrooms-in-u-s-prepare-for-flood-as-migrants-become-pupils.html
| Quote: |
The record flood of Central American children crossing the U.S. border is stretching funds and setting off improvisation at public schools.
While politicians spend the summer fighting over how to turn back the tide, school leaders across the U.S. are struggling to absorb a new student population the size of Newark, New Jersey’s. More than 40,000 children, many of them fresh from violent, harrowing journeys, have been released since October to stateside relatives as courts process their cases.
“These kids were homesick and heartbroken,” said Robin Hamby, a family specialist for Fairfax County Public Schools in suburban Washington, which began feeling the surge almost as soon as it began three years ago.
Her Virginia district employs more teachers who work with non-English speakers than ever, and wrote a curriculum to reunite children and parents, many of whom haven’t seen one another in years. Houston is increasing training and translation. Los Angeles nurses are working overtime to screen for emotional trauma created on the journey north.
U.S. authorities have apprehended more than 52,000 lone minors this fiscal year, part of a wave mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. This week, President Barack Obama asked Congress for $3.7 billion to cope with the deluge that’s overwhelmed processing centers, shelters where some children stay, courts and social-service agencies. |
Steyn:
http://www.steynonline.com/6466/the-challenges-of-diversity
| Quote: |
~The great thing about all this diversity is that it presents us with "challenges". And who doesn't like a challenge? From The Washington Post:
The kindergartners of the Class of 2026, who finished their first year in Fairfax County schools Wednesday, constitute the largest and one of the most ethnically, culturally and socioeconomically diverse groups of students the county has seen, a fact that school system administrators say could pose significant challenges in the decade to come.
"Challenge" in this context is a euphemism for wholesale cultural transformation.
The demographic changes in Fairfax are likely to have long-term implications for the school system: Most of this year's kindergarten class will spend the next 12 years in county schools. Schools officials believe that the challenges that come with a less-affluent and less-prepared population will exacerbate the system's struggles with a widening achievement gap for minorities and ballooning class sizes.
"Challenge" in this context is a euphemism for crappy dysfunctional schools.
"There are additional costs associated with these changes that will continue to challenge our budgeting in the years ahead," [School Superintendent] Garza said. "We view these demographic shifts and our growing diversity as a strength that we will continue to celebrate."
"Challenge" in this context is a euphemism for higher taxes. But the last sentence warn that if you're dumb enough to query why worse schools and higher taxes serve the interests of Americans you're a racist. |
Challenges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a bit old, but I still thought it was interesting.
| Quote: |
Men are happier than women, despite putting more time into the office
After analyzing the results, Captivate was able to identify the most and least happy workers. Interestingly, virtually across the board men seem to be happier than women when it comes to their work-life balance. This despite the fact that men put in more hours of work than women do, both on-hours and off-hours. The margins between happy men and women may not be huge, but the impact, as later results will show, is keenly felt.
The survey found that 75% of men say they have a healthy work-life balance compared to 70% of women.
The profile of a happy worker: He’s 39 years old, married and has a household income between $150 and $200K. He works in a senior management position, has one young child at home and a wife who works part-time.
The profile of an unhappy worker: She’s a 42-year-old, unmarried woman [edit: with no children, something mentioned in the visual, but not in this text for some reason] with a household income under $100K who works in a professional position.
Surprisingly, men are happier even though they put in more time at the office. Men work an average of 8.8 hours per day, compared to women who put in an average of 8.4 hours per day at the office.
Men are also more likely to work from home during off-hours, clocking in 4.6 hours each week at home on nights and weekends, while women work 3 hours each week off-hours.
However, men are more likely to telecommute once or twice a week than women are (30% vs. 18%). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
This is a bit old, but I still thought it was interesting.
| Quote: |
Men are happier than women, despite putting more time into the office
After analyzing the results, Captivate was able to identify the most and least happy workers. Interestingly, virtually across the board men seem to be happier than women when it comes to their work-life balance. This despite the fact that men put in more hours of work than women do, both on-hours and off-hours. The margins between happy men and women may not be huge, but the impact, as later results will show, is keenly felt.
The survey found that 75% of men say they have a healthy work-life balance compared to 70% of women.
The profile of a happy worker: He’s 39 years old, married and has a household income between $150 and $200K. He works in a senior management position, has one young child at home and a wife who works part-time.
The profile of an unhappy worker: She’s a 42-year-old, unmarried woman [edit: with no children, something mentioned in the visual, but not in this text for some reason] with a household income under $100K who works in a professional position.
Surprisingly, men are happier even though they put in more time at the office. Men work an average of 8.8 hours per day, compared to women who put in an average of 8.4 hours per day at the office.
Men are also more likely to work from home during off-hours, clocking in 4.6 hours each week at home on nights and weekends, while women work 3 hours each week off-hours.
However, men are more likely to telecommute once or twice a week than women are (30% vs. 18%). |
|
The study also mentions that Women still do more chores, take less breaks, and telecommute less to a significant margin. Plus the difference between what the happy earner is making and what the unhappy worker makes seems to be equally significant, or more, than gender. Not saying the idea is wrong, but this study is not comparing apples and apples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
The study also mentions that Women still do more chores, |
Maybe women in general, but not the single, childless women who constitute the "least happy," who will be doing far fewer chores than their married, child-raising peers. That was the most interesting part of the study to me, the way they try to invoke the "modern women are unhappy because of chores" narrative when their "least happy" profile didn't fit it at all.
| Leon wrote: |
| Plus the difference between what the happy earner is making and what the unhappy worker makes seems to be equally significant, or more, than gender. |
I don't think any one variable is what's interesting, I think it's the complete profile which is interesting. Obviously a woman with the same profile but higher earnings will be happier according to the data, I don't think that's particularly controversial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Slate, published by the Washington Post, runs the most anti-Christian headline I've seen since this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/did-christianity-cause-the-crash/307764/ :
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/31/gay_electroshock_conversion_in_china_a_lawsuit_challenges_the_practice.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
| Quote: |
| China Isn’t Christian—So Why Are Its Gays Undergoing Electroshock Conversion Therapy? |
It's a bunch of liberal point and sputter, but this stood out at me:
| Quote: |
| But in China, an officially atheist country, the motivations behind such “therapy” are more complex. Xiao Tie, an executive director of the Beijing LGBTQ Center told the Wire that most Chinese people who undergo conversion therapy are pressured into it by their families. Traditional family life—in particular, passing on your genes—is highly valued in China, and gays are often seen as broken branches of the family tree. |
The purpose of mating is to pass on genes. That is the definition of reproductive fitness and success. If you only have one kid, and that kid is homo, your bloodline ends. Worse yet, if your de-facto religion is ancestor worship then a gay kid is a disaster.
xxxxx
Here a crazy person applies radical egalitarianism to the animal kingdom:
http://io9.com/the-radical-plan-to-eliminate-earths-predatory-species-1613342963
| Quote: |
| Should animals be permitted to hunt and kill other animals? Some futurists believe that humans should intervene, and solve the "problem" of predator vs. prey once and for all. We talked to the man who wants to use radical ecoengineering to put an end to the carnage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some of you guys are going to dislike this.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/doj-immigration-court-domestic-violence-asylum-conservative-backlash
| Quote: |
On Tuesday, the country's top immigration court ruled that some migrants escaping domestic violence may qualify for asylum in the United States. The decision, from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), is a landmark: It's the first time that this court has recognized a protected group that primarily includes women. The ruling offers a glimmer of hope to asylum-seekers who have fled horrific abuse. The decision has also infuriated conservatives, who claim that the ruling is a veritable invitation to undocumented immigrants and marks a vast expansion of citizenship opportunities for foreigners.
The case involved a Guatemalan woman who ran away from her abusive husband. "This abuse included weekly beatings," the court wrote in its summary of her circumstances. "He threw paint thinner on her, which burned her breast. He raped her." The police refused to intervene, and on Christmas 2005, she and her three children illegally entered the United States.
Before Tuesday's decision, immigration judges routinely denied asylum to domestic violence victims because US asylum law does not protect people who are persecuted on account of their gender. The law only shields people who are persecuted because they are members of a certain race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Tuesday's ruling, however, recognized "married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship" as a unique social group—giving the Guatemalan woman standing to make an asylum claim. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Another step towards a one-party state, with low wages and ethnic horse trading for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Another step towards a one-party state, with low wages and ethnic horse trading for all. |
Its a rare humanitarian win! Parade your horribles, Titus. Slippery slope, slippery slope! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros if you let in women from Mexico on south who have had their asses kicked by their husbands you're basically going to import all of them.
Bonus: when they get here the husband can come up for family reunification. We don't want to "tear families apart" do we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
Kuros if you let in women from Mexico on south who have had their asses kicked by their husbands you're basically going to import all of them.
|
Titus, this was a Bureau of Immigration Appeals decision. This was your hysterical and unhinged reply:
| Quote: |
| Another step towards a one-party state, with low wages and ethnic horse trading for all. |
The courts are independent, so no, this has nothing to do with a one-party state. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security argued against this decision as the Respondent. Obama doesn't want this.
Second of all, asylum immigration policy has nothing to do with wages. The employment immigration policy of the United States gears itself towards individuals with investment capital or high skills. Asylum is something different and far more narrow. Its very difficult to win asylum, and its expensive to afford the attorney just to petition.
As for ethnic horse-trading, I don't even know what that means, so I'm unable to address it, just as I'm unable to address gibberish.
So now to the opinion itself.
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol26/3811.pdf
| Quote: |
We will remand the record for the Immigration Judge to address the respondent’s statutory eligibility for asylum in light of this decision. Under controlling circuit law, in order for the respondent to prevail on an asylum claim based on past persecution, she must demonstrate that the Guatemalan Government was unwilling or unable to control the “private” actor. See Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728, 732–33 (8th Cir. 2013); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920–22 (8th Cir. 2005).
If the respondent succeeds in establishing that the Government was unwilling or unable to control her husband, the burden shifts to the DHS to demonstrate that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the respondent no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), (ii) (2014). Alternatively, the DHS would bear the burden of showing that internal relocation is possible and is not unreasonable. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii); see also Matter of M-Z-M-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2012).17 The Immigration Judge may also consider, if appropriate, whether the respondent is eligible for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). |
You'll notice two things. First, BIA simply remanded the case for further determinations. The Immigration Judge below simply dismissed the case too quickly, but the IJ will now have a chance to grapple with the facts. One of the important facts is whether the Guatamalan government would intervene in a case like this, or whether Guatamala condones or promotes spousal abuse generally, or particularly in this case.
The sky isn't falling. Its just an appellate ruling. If you don't like it, petition Congress to specifically exclude spousal abuse as grounds for asylum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
