.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
lostboy
-
Posts
623 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by lostboy
-
-
By the way, the 'ft' isn't a tax. It is simply a mechanism to allow the pass through for changes in variable market linked fuel prices.
It is, though it is referred to as a tariff, still a type of tax.
"Tariff is defined as a form of duty or tax levied on goods for protective purposes and revenue purposes when they are transported from one customs area to another while custom duties are the collected income from tariff taxes.
Read more: Difference Between Duty and Tariff | Difference Between | Duty vs Tariff http://www.differencebetween.net/business/finance-business-2/difference-between-duty-and-tariff/#ixzz3s0Vsmn91
A tariff is a tax on imports or exports (an international trade tariff).
It is also economist speak for a price. Nothing more. Check out the presentation on page 10. By my old boss no less...
http://www.eria.org/events/Power%20Tariff%20Structure%20in%20Thailand.pdf
Ft should probably be described as a surcharge. It is in fact the difference between the predicted guestimate of their cost of energy versus the real cost for that period. However I suppose they have used this opportunity where fuel prices have more than halved to increase the actual price by more than 12%. To the layman it does not look like any increase as he merely checks his last bill against his current bill. There seems to be little or no change. When energy prices rise again they will jack up the Ft again and of course blame the increases on the underlying increase in prices for their fuel. All smoke and mirrors.
It's a bit like Snickers. They have a habit of increasing the size of the snickers and sell at the same price. What a bargain. However later they jack up the price but come on you are getting a bigger bar for your money. Then all of a sudden without any warning the bars regain their original dimensions but the price remains the same.
In a nutshell there is an increase overall of more than 12% in a deflationary environment. Absolute barefaced robbery.
Den
The Ft is not a tax or surcharge. It is a fuel adjustment mechanism. It varies because the cost of fuel used varies due to market price fluctuation. The Ft is calculated and approved every 4 months by the Energy Regulatory Commission. The tariff components are described on the presentation by the former ERC Commissioner posted earlier. The Ft, however, has 2 components a base Ft and a Change Ft. This 'refinement' was introduced because of policy directives to include the adder (now FIT) for renewable energy into the FT. Other subsidies, such as the 50 kWh free allocation is also included in the Ft.
ERC has chosen not to increase the Ft at the time of high fuel prices to 100% of the cost to spare the public from price shock. In that case, EGAT is asked to bear the burden. it's losses are compensated during time of low fuel prices by allowing a higher Ft than would normally have been charged.
-
For the green fruitcakes. This is great -higher prices means less need for OIL based products.
Oil has very little contribution to electricity production in Thailand.
While oil comprises a small percentage of the capacity mix, it is used by the more expensive power plants that are operated to supply power at peak times. These plants only operate intermittently, so their cost structure is much higher. This, however, is reflected in the Ft calculation.
-
SAMRAN....What, pray tell was racist about the very funny reply EZZRA submitted? Apart from you having a go at EZZRA, why don't you get back into your spaceship and go back to where you came from? Is that RACIST?
You're kidding right? You seriously do not get the point? You defend the grubby racist mumblings of that other poster, why? He does not define what it means to be Australian. Neither do you. 30 years ago, some places in Queensland and the Northern Territory provided cover for the anglo-racist simpletons who could not handle dealing with Asian or other non-white faces. Now even those places do not provide a home for such grubbiness.
The kind of humour that seems to turn you on is usually stamped out after kindergarten. In supposedly mature adults, it is just nasty, unbecoming and immature. You may take this on board your own imaginary flying saucer.
What, did you register a new username just to make that attack on samran?
-
I think you have a fair amount of cheek yourself. You seem to think that a person advocating discrimination based on race is part of a fair and frank discussion and exchange of opinions. It is not. It is offensive and if you spew such BS, you deserve to get pulled up. Australia no longer belongs to the whites. It belongs to all of us and more Aussies believe in a 'fair go' for everyone, no matter what the colour of their skin or country of birth than the grumpy old racists and anti-PC nobodies. You may hold your discriminatory and hateful opinion, that is your right. Just don't be surprised when someone reacts when you have the poor taste to express it. Bet you wouldn't do it in real life.
Australian now belongs to those 12,000 Syrians along with the rest of us. I look forward to the contribution of their culture and the beneficial economic impact their future generations will have - including them paying taxes that go to pay the pensions of grumpy old sots in Thai beer bars. Proud to be Australian and stand with others to welcome these new Australians.
Well said.
Reductio ad absurdum. If you are unable to look it up, then ask a friend.
Leaving aside your putrid attempt to be humorous by denigrating Australian Aboriginal people, the way you demonise the Syrian refugees as a kind of uneducated, rural peasantry on the same level as many people of a similar mind as yours regard Gypsies in Europe and the UK, is reprehensible. Aleppo in Syria is one of the oldest, continuously inhabited cities in the world, being established more then 6,300 years ago. They had achieved civilised heights way before your ancestors stopped painting themselves blue.
Your statement that Aboriginal people are primitive, with no sense of parental responsibility is pretty disgusting. You assume no Aboriginal people Iive in urban areas in Australia? Whatever you think you know about Australian Aboriginal people, your crassness makes any observation you make redundant. There is a lot more to Aboriginal Australia than Arnhem Land. You may educate yourself on Aboriginal land Rights by visiting the Whitlam Institute https://www.whitlam.org/gough_whitlam/achievements/indigenous and become aware of some of the issues that reduce your trite, puerile comments to nothing.
-
Bet your tune would change if you lost a family member or had one maimed by a bomb...........
Here we go, the Thai Visa's rocket scientists give it their best shot.
I mean, is that all you have? Can't think of anything smarter to say? Queue retard voice 'I bet your tune would change.....'
My family took in and employed Vietnamese and Khmer refugees, at a time when they were being villified in the same way these guys are. Can't trust those Vietnamese - they were shooting at us 3 years ago. Look - Asians! Coming to take over our way of life.
So I'll type this for you slowly Einstein, so you understand.
I've got a greater chance at dying falling off a ladder in Australia than I do from a bomb from one of these poor sods.
I mean, how did you get this far through life without repeatedly poking your eye out with a fork...?
Samran, why don,t you do the world a favour and jump off a ladder. If all you can do to get your jollies off is insult people who do not agree with you I seriously doubt your ability to lord it over other posters.
I think you have a fair amount of cheek yourself. You seem to think that a person advocating discrimination based on race is part of a fair and frank discussion and exchange of opinions. It is not. It is offensive and if you spew such BS, you deserve to get pulled up. Australia no longer belongs to the whites. It belongs to all of us and more Aussies believe in a 'fair go' for everyone, no matter what the colour of their skin or country of birth than the grumpy old racists and anti-PC nobodies. You may hold your discriminatory and hateful opinion, that is your right. Just don't be surprised when someone reacts when you have the poor taste to express it. Bet you wouldn't do it in real life.
Australian now belongs to those 12,000 Syrians along with the rest of us. I look forward to the contribution of their culture and the beneficial economic impact their future generations will have - including them paying taxes that go to pay the pensions of grumpy old sots in Thai beer bars. Proud to be Australian and stand with others to welcome these new Australians.
-
Phantomfiddler
I understand pillorying Starbucks is an international sport, and what fun!
but as a coffee drinker on rare occasions when not clipping coupons or nose hair I wonder where you guys drink (and yes if you really do ) your coffee. Mine I get OS, bring in and make myself but I digressTake a Starbucks Grande cup - 110 baht is it?
Now head to Thai coffee shop - Coffee World ... Woweee .... Coffee Space .... Black canyon ... .etc. go get yourself those 35-55 baht coffees - now pour into Grande cup.
Pour one
Pour two
By the 3rd or 4th cup the Grande cup amount should be reached. Establishing a base price should now be easy, simple economics. I am not going to factor in "stale coffee" %which is always a problem in Thailand because the business ethos here prevents them from tossing any product NO matter how old.
I like coffee, not a little drop or a wet fart. That means yes I will buy from Starbucks on occasion, if in need, as I want a BIG brimming cup of coffee to roll with.
Coffee World started in India I believe.
-
God Bless Starbucks for finally standing up to the over-bearing arrogance of the snow bunnies who live north of the Tropic of Cancer. For centuries these thoughtless people have forced the manufactured cultural icon of Christmas to be irretrievably linked to snow. This is a disgrace and offensive to everyone who lives or lived in the Southern Hemisphere. Christmas for me was fresh cray fish, cured ham, iced drinks and splashing around under the sprinkler on the lawn in my bathers. My experience and that of hundreds of millions of others is constantly invalidated by the cultural dictators of the snow based Christmas myth. Pity the poor buggers in Australia and Sth Africa wearing those heavy Santa suits in the height of summer. Who apart from the Sami people in Lapland know whether a reindeer has a red nose or not. How many people can drive a damn sleigh.
Good on Starbucks for removing snowflakes from their cups. Down with the brutal oppression of people who don't get snow at Christmas. Full marks for Corporate Social Responsibility.
-
I'm sorry, but PC has just gone too damn far in the world today.
Clearly you have zero knowledge of the aboriginal experience in modern Australian society. Tell me, is it only the blacks that should be monitored in Apple Stores or are you just an all-purpose ecumenical racist and would instruct all non-whites to be supervised?
-
94 Million out of the work force does not seem to affect the figures
I have seen independent % and they say it's closer to 34% unemployment
I am not sure people actually translate what you are saying but you are dead right! This is how Unemployment numbers from the US Gov are able to successfully dupe most Americans. Few understand that the these numbers only count people who are actually out looking, registered as looking, collecting benefits, etc. These do not include Farm numbers, etc. These numbers are arrived at totally by fiat- what they choose to count.
The real issue is the near 100 million out of the work force, as you note. These people are people who could be working, should be working, but are no longer counted because they cannot get unemployment, and are otherwise out of work for x amount of time. What this does is artificially create the sample numbers you then derive the Unemployment percentage- why? Because it only counts a certain, select group of people. Meanwhile, nearly 100,000,000 who could be working are not.
Thus it is not simply a matter of difference of opinion of meaning it is a matter of great subterfuge and deceit. America is actually hollowing out, cannibalizing money from one pocket to float the appearance of money in another pocket, while Rome rots. 271,000 jobs created does not even roughly touch the near 100 million. Why? The calculation of these jobs is based on those in the sample population. Those people went to work. Those newer unemployed went to work.
America is in a long agonal sigh.
The Unemployment Rate is merely a statistic. What makes a statistic worse than 'lies & damn lies' is when the metrics used to produce that statistic are changed or altered. As far as I am aware, the method of calculating the Unemployment Rate is open to all who wish to study it and the method hasn't changed in quite some time.
So what happens when you don't like the statistic? You provide one that better fits your position even if it has absolutely no bearing on the topic. I guess all this is outlined in the memo from the right-wing think tanks on 'How to Deflect Away from Positive Unemployment Data'.
Workplace Participation rates are calculated on an entirely different basis than the Unemployment Rate. There is nothing sinister about the Workplace Participation Rate calculation. What is sinister is using that to attach unemployment statistics. Others in this thread have pointed to challenges in the assumptions that underly the Workplace Participation Rate and I believe that a more intellectually honest approach would be to resolve those discrepancies in the methodology before using some number, that you arbitrarily round up to make it more frightening.
There are a score of reasons for people not participating in the traditional workplace i.e. the workplace based on an industrial and manufacturing economy. One of the key reasons is the way the economy has changed and so the types of jobs are different. Consequently, it is not surprising if the numbers of people participating in a traditional workplace environment is diminishing. This is a positive move showing the dynamics of new economies.
You are gifted with eloquence and have often attacked posters for intellectual dishonesty. It would seem that your advocacy of the tea bag play book is a dishonest use of your gifts. The Unemployment Rate which has been calculated the same way for decades show that there is statistically full employment in the United States. Congratulations to the President for this achievement. It will add to his legacy alongside the Affordable Care Act, removing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, closing Guantamano and his support for marriage equality. The list continues.
I have rarely attacked posters for "intellectual dishonesty:" it is either honesty or intellect (reasoning). When most provide faulty logic it does not follow they are being dishonest. Example, I presume[d]*** your post is honest, but it is intellectually flawed. When your third sentence is wrong all the water you pull from that well will be unpalatable.
Whether or not to "like" statistics is the purview of the emotional crowd- the left. Most data can be objectively interpreted and a shared observation common to all, except with those who can only "like" and feel the world. The BLS scam is no more than the reliance on a process that differs little from yarrow sticks and chicken blood divination. Its the modern of equivalent of an old man, a pointed hat, soma, and a full moon- utter rubbish. The left always appeal to the emotive because they lack the ability to self ascertain the origin of their emotions, erroneously granting feeling/liking the same legitimacy as rationale faculties. "Like" and feel have little value in numbers.
While I do not know where 34% came from its hardly a stretch to "round up" to 100,000,000 out of work from an estimated 92,000,000+.
("...arbitrarily round up to make it more frightening:" 92,000,000+ is hardly less frightening than 100,000,000. When 92x is terrifying as to be spellbinding rounding up to 100x is hardly worthy of comment). That you would pivot on this point reveals a marked absence of strength. Your linkage of this issue with Afghanistan, Healthcare, and war suggests the wobbly legs of your position. Why not simply provide the merit of your strength? How about some references to abuse our fantasies? Its easy to appear informed from your pajamas. Basically, you have soundly rebutted your own post as you progressed; thanks!
***I took your entire post seriously until I read "tea bag." This simple phrase outs you as a intellectual poser. You did such a good job of emotionally rebuking another but then the Fruedian voice could not help but sign the post with your real motivation. "Intellectual honesty?" Your kidding, right?***
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html
"...the method hasn't changed in quite some time."
BLS changes- http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
BLS changes- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm
Well, I did expect better but once you start down the road of intellectual dishonesty, it is hard to claw back. The thing about logic is that it can be demonstrated. Merely claiming flawed logic without such demonstration is therefore logically flawed. QED, you might say. I will ignore your perpetuation of some fantastical view of emotional responses to data. It is a frivolous diversion and you know it.
Since you are deliberately missing the point, I will reiterate. Using workplace participation rates to counter unemployment rate figures is intellectually dishonest. I am happy for people to continuously argue the assumptions, metrics and methodologies behind such data and the way such data is used in budgeting, policy and planning. I am happy for arguments to take place about which data sets are more appropriate and revealing. But you cannot argue that the unemployment rate does not use a methodology the is understood and the basic underlying principles haven't changed for some time, even though some details may have changed - just as other indices change over time. But such changes are quite transparent.
Governments, businesses and all sorts of organisations rely on indices. They refer to indices with the full knowledge and understanding o the methodologies used to create the figures and how that impacts on their usage of the figures. That you have a political objection to the agency that produces these figures is irrelevant. They are intended to be used in various models to assist policy and decision makes, both public and private.
You are the one to conflate Afghanistan with the unemployment rate in a quite desperate attempt to go ad hominem. My words are clear and can be seen by all. I congratulate the President and refer to his legacy.
If you can demonstrate that the US is not currently at a level of statistical full employment, as measured by the standards used by the agency that calculates those figures, then please do so. Doing otherwise is certainly intellectually dishonest.
-
94 Million out of the work force does not seem to affect the figures
I have seen independent % and they say it's closer to 34% unemployment
I am not sure people actually translate what you are saying but you are dead right! This is how Unemployment numbers from the US Gov are able to successfully dupe most Americans. Few understand that the these numbers only count people who are actually out looking, registered as looking, collecting benefits, etc. These do not include Farm numbers, etc. These numbers are arrived at totally by fiat- what they choose to count.
The real issue is the near 100 million out of the work force, as you note. These people are people who could be working, should be working, but are no longer counted because they cannot get unemployment, and are otherwise out of work for x amount of time. What this does is artificially create the sample numbers you then derive the Unemployment percentage- why? Because it only counts a certain, select group of people. Meanwhile, nearly 100,000,000 who could be working are not.
Thus it is not simply a matter of difference of opinion of meaning it is a matter of great subterfuge and deceit. America is actually hollowing out, cannibalizing money from one pocket to float the appearance of money in another pocket, while Rome rots. 271,000 jobs created does not even roughly touch the near 100 million. Why? The calculation of these jobs is based on those in the sample population. Those people went to work. Those newer unemployed went to work.
America is in a long agonal sigh.
The Unemployment Rate is merely a statistic. What makes a statistic worse than 'lies & damn lies' is when the metrics used to produce that statistic are changed or altered. As far as I am aware, the method of calculating the Unemployment Rate is open to all who wish to study it and the method hasn't changed in quite some time.
So what happens when you don't like the statistic? You provide one that better fits your position even if it has absolutely no bearing on the topic. I guess all this is outlined in the memo from the right-wing think tanks on 'How to Deflect Away from Positive Unemployment Data'.
Workplace Participation rates are calculated on an entirely different basis than the Unemployment Rate. There is nothing sinister about the Workplace Participation Rate calculation. What is sinister is using that to attach unemployment statistics. Others in this thread have pointed to challenges in the assumptions that underly the Workplace Participation Rate and I believe that a more intellectually honest approach would be to resolve those discrepancies in the methodology before using some number, that you arbitrarily round up to make it more frightening.
There are a score of reasons for people not participating in the traditional workplace i.e. the workplace based on an industrial and manufacturing economy. One of the key reasons is the way the economy has changed and so the types of jobs are different. Consequently, it is not surprising if the numbers of people participating in a traditional workplace environment is diminishing. This is a positive move showing the dynamics of new economies.
You are gifted with eloquence and have often attacked posters for intellectual dishonesty. It would seem that your advocacy of the tea bag play book is a dishonest use of your gifts. The Unemployment Rate which has been calculated the same way for decades show that there is statistically full employment in the United States. Congratulations to the President for this achievement. It will add to his legacy alongside the Affordable Care Act, removing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, closing Guantamano and his support for marriage equality. The list continues.
-
And the homophobic, scared cats of lbgt raise their bigoted heads on TV. The only reason the HERO was rejected by voters in Houston was typical right wing religious wing nut lying money put into ads. How many of you bigoted racist homophobic scared cats even know a ladyboy? Troglodytes all of you. You live in Thailand, you've never been a toilet with women? I spent a pleasant evening helping a ladyboy friend opening her new bar, oh and she has a very male boyfriend. Toglodytes all you religious right wing bigots, yes bigots because that is what you are.
Well I noticed that liberal (so-called "non-bigoted" places) like San Francisco don't have any ethical standards. They don't discriminate based on ethics and the result of that is they end up welcoming a criminal group of perverts like NAMBLA. Another example was the author of a manual for pedophiles in Colorado: he was totally free to do that in Colorado, and wasn't arrested until a sheriff from the Bible Belt found his book on Amazon, ordered it, and had it delivered to him (in felony violation of that state's child pornography statutes). Now I realize there is a difference between adult same-sex relations and pedophilia but the LGBT mafia has gotten mixed up with this and similar scumbag tactics - now I read they want to force the Boy Scouts to change their ethical standards. I get the picture that they and other leftist groups, subconsciously or consciously, want to totally overthrow the Judeo-Christian foundation of our civilization - what they're doing doesn't make sense otherwise.
And still not sure how the whole "bigot" line came about, but it seems this is a browbeating tactic. And for the discrimination question: discrimination is a central function of a rational mind. Of course a rational person would discriminate on a reasonable basis - preferably between good and evil - but part of the basis of a free civilization is you have the right to associate with who you want to associate with. It's stupid to base that on anything other than ethics or practical things but it seems unethical to force people to associate with people they do not want to be around. Part of "mind your own business" is don't force other people to do things they don't want to do.
Why do the bigots and nasties find such a supportive home amongst the Republicans? Allowing a transgender to use the women's restroom will result in the destruction of the Judeo-Christian culture? What facile hyperbole. What is Judeo-Christian culture when it's at home anyway? Some 9th Grade Social Studies curriculum parroted by a bespecled good 'Christian' woman in the mid 20th C when you wore short pants? I think you were also the one who claimed that the principle of 'mind your own business' was in the Magna Carta. Continue to live in your little world, a construct of outmoded and discredited values. You diminish the word ethics by the way you toss it around in your ideologically perverse usage.
Just so amusing when bigots complain about being called bigots. None of your rant has any relation to or bearing on the issue of LGBT non discrimination. Let the people who do not allow fear to stoke their bigotry discuss this one. Come back when you've talked to an LGBT person and have some empathy for other human beings.
-
I don't know what you are basing his greatness on. I don't know of any great men in modern times, that believe whatever they want to believe even though the FACTS and the SCIENCE clearly show that they are wrong.
The US constitution clearly says that there should be a separation of church and state and this loonie is a classic example of why your fore fathers wrote that into the constitution!!!
The guy is a doctor, a man of science, yet he only sees what he wants to see.
That appears to be something the two of you have in common.
You will be so sad when your GOP loses yet another election because they allow morons like this to represent them.
No way should a buffoon like this be on any stage unless it is a comedy club.
"The US constitution clearly says that there should be a separation of church and state and this loonie is a classic example of why your fore fathers wrote that into the constitution!!!"
I'm forced to call you yet again on this untrue statement of yours. Separation of church and state is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.
If you can find it, then please post it. If not, please stop making this totally false statement.
Jefferson, Adams, and many of the composers and signers of The Constitution in subsequent writings clearly, and I do mean clearly, state that that is the meaning and the intent of The First Amendment; Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Are you trying to say that Thomas Jefferson was mistaken in his writing? Jefferson did not know what he was "talking about"?
Or did President Adams and the entirety of the US Senate not know what they were doing when they ratified Art. 11. (Of The Treaty of Tripoli) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; "
IMO, sir, you are shown to be the one who 'does not know' what he is talking about. SCOTUS has on a number of occasions also concurred.
This was in response to another person partially or wholly ignorant of the content and MEANING of the First Amendment. As stated, The Supreme Court has historically on every occasion supported the Separation Doctrine, although sometimes more stringently than at others.
Until you are seen to be wearing those robes and writing the majority opinion, perhaps you should not be so ready to trumpet your opinions as facts.
The following statement was made by ALLSEEINGEYE and is the one being disputed:
"The US constitution clearly says that there should be a separation of church and state and this loonie is a classic example of why your fore fathers wrote that into the constitution!!!
The original comment made was the separation of church and state is "clearly" written in the Constitution. Separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in either the Constitutional Articles or the Bill of Rights.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with any subsequent Supreme Court decisions and, most assuredly, has nothing to do with Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Amendment to the Constitution says...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in which the first mention of a "separation of church and state" was included. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have been handed down based on his letter to Danbury Baptist as an interpretation of the intent of Congress in the wording of the First Amendment.
That letter in its entirety follows:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.GentlemenThe affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.Th JeffersonJan. 1. 1802.---------------------------------------------------------------------When you find those magic words, "separation of church and state", contained within either the original articles or the following amendments of the Constitution please inform the world as nobody has been able to locate them since the original ratification by the States in 1788 of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights later.Those are not my opinions...those are the facts.I don't need to wear the robes, I just need to be able to read.Jefferson writes that "religion is solely between Man & his God". If one supports this notion, then one also should wonder why people of faith insist on requiring the rest of us to endure their theological theorising and ideological perversions of human events. Most people I imagine would respect Carson's personal views as they would wish their own to be respected. It is when he opens his mouth and blurts out these lunacies that is objectionable and quite rightly, defining of his character, temperament and gravitas.
The more I learn about the key protagonists in the American Revolution and their roots in the Rationalism of the Age, the more I believe that they were primarily deists and consequently would be suspicious of religiously inspired texts.
However, the issue in conflict here is the expression 'separation of church and state'. I wonder what compels you to keep responding to this so frequently. What is the purpose of such pedantry? Getting the facts right or something deeper? Allseeingeye did not say that the phrase was written in the US Constitution. He said that the US Constitution states... For me, this is enough wriggle room to believe that he was talking about the principle, not the exact text.
Do you deny the principle of the separation of church and state as described by Jefferson, SCOTUS and many, many other people is not inherent in or supported by the text in the US Constitution? Congress can't start a religion. Congress can't ban a religion. The state is out of the religion business. Employees of the state, including southern judges who want the 10 Commandments in front of their courthouse, or dumpy soccer moms who want to see Baby Jesus in his crib in City Hall at Christmas time, may not require citizens to endure their ideology in public spaces or through the public purse.
For the purposes of this argument, separation of church and state and the text of the first amendment should be interchangeable. Unless your purpose is to weaken this and promote one brand of religion or ideology over another.
-
So if I am biologically born as a man, but tell everyone that I think I should be a woman - then that gives me the right to enter and use bathrooms, toilets showers and changing rooms reserved for biological women?
That cannot be OK. What about the rights and personal privacy of those women? They may not share the view that the transexual/transvestite is a 'real' woman.
I don't know the answer to this problem. If I say that I believe that I am the Queen of England, does that give me the right to live in Buckingham Palace?
Many people who do not understand the experience of people with sexual orientation or gender identity different to their own legitimately express concerns. Unfortunately, the way those concerns are expressed or the words that are used can lead to offence. The way you express your view perpetuates the discredited myth that these sexual and gender issues are a matter of belief and opinion. The American Psychological Association has long since accepted that sexual orientation and gender identity are not mental health issues. http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
What you do with your words is trivialise the life experience of LGBT people. You equate their challenges engaging in a society structured to favour non LGBT people to some frat boy prank or some deviant activity. If an occupant of a female restroom feels uncomfortable about a female identifying trans person using that facility, then that is their problem. If they perceive the performance of a biological function or hygienic activity as a sexually provocative act, then they need treatment.
Let's just make all restrooms unisex.
If you don't know the answer to the issue, perhaps you might consider talking to an LGBT person before making comparisons. It is hard to know whether to go on the attack against a bigot or bigoted statement or whether to pass on knowledge to someone who truly does not yet understand. I think past experience causes many LGBT people and their supporters to take the first option.
-
And the ACLU and NAACP are correct, as usual. ACLU, CCR and National Lawyers Guild has been in my corner more than once and we always won, eventually, even if one case had to go to the Supreme Court, it was then. Ah, so it was her attitude that brought on the abuse by the cop. Time for a little "attitude adjustment". Yea I bet that really helped. Had I ever done something anywhere near like that I would have been fired withing 24 hours and rightly so. America is a surveillance/police state, the cops are militarized and act like they are an occupying army, and has a school to prison pipeline. Perhaps some of the sheeple are starting to realize they can stand on their hind feet. Question authority.
" Ah, so it was her attitude that brought on the abuse by the cop."
Her attitude certainly didn't help the situation. It seems she refused requests to surrender her cell phone by her teacher, a school administrator and a school security officer.
Since requesting her cooperation failed to get the desired result, what would you have done in the exact same situation.
Resort to begging?
Personally, I would have dragged her chair, with her in it, out into the hall and walked off, leaving her sitting in the middle of the hall. I would then have called her parents and told them she was suspended from school for three days and was not permitted to bring an electronic device to school for the remainder of the school year.
If she violated that edict, she would be permanently suspended from Spring Valley High School...end of story.
Come and get her.
The security officer overreacted, as I have said several times before. He has suffered the consequences of his actions by being fired.
All she has received are commiserations from a bunch of bleeding heart liberals.
Well Chuck, I liked your story of how you bullied one of your employees because his wife was not suitably respectful to you better than your fantasy about beating up on teenage girls. What would be the effect of your Taliban approach to behaviour modification? Short term success - yes, if you define success as proving your manhood by such actions. It is interesting that you view any action that does not involve violence and 'fiats' - your word - are symptomatic of 'bleeding heart liberals'.
I know from experience that your tough guy approach to interpersonal communications only works if you are respected and with that respect comes Authority. Otherwise you are merely a dick.
One small point of correction. I believe the police officer was employed by or assigned to the school (I do not know the contractual details) as a School Resource Officer and that his duties did not or primarily did not involve enforcement. As I understand from the police supervisor's interview on CNN, a School Resource Office is responsible for educational programs. Referring to that officer as a Security Officer, may be misleading.
I am certainly pleased I was able to brighten your probably dismal day.
Having said that, your opinion of how i might have chosen to handle a particular employee situation in a closed society such as Saudi Arabia means squat to the conversation. I took care of it without having to "prove my manhood" at all. I had a quiet discussion with the employee informing him what the consequences would be if his wife repeated her actions and the situation was resolved during the remaining few years of our working relationship. Perhaps you have never been in a management position so I can understand your angst.
The security officer was indeed an employee of the Richland County Sheriff's Department as a Senior Deputy. He was assigned to the High School as a part of his law enforcement duties.
From the OP..."Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott suspended Senior Deputy Ben Fields without pay..."
In conclusion permit me to make the following comment. You make this claim:
"It is interesting that you view any action that does not involve violence and 'fiats' - your word - are symptomatic of 'bleeding heart liberals'."
One minor correction on my part. I never used the word "fiats" in my post.
Since sgtsabai claims agreement with "much" of my solution, please tell me what an apparent bleeding heart liberal would have done to resolve the situation.
My apologies. You are correct and you did not use the word fiat. You used the word edict. One could, I guess discriminate between the two words on the basis of implied arbitrariness in the word fiat and I fully agree with you that the request/requirement to surrender the cell phone was backed by policy and necessary authority.
In your politicised world view though, the idea of non-confrontational methods are seen as soft, liberal and bleeding hearted. What would I have done? I would have de-escalated. I know that any personal information I give will be grist to your mill of trying to out me, but many lifetimes ago, I actually worked in a classroom and other parts of my state's educational bureaucracy. I had very few issues with classroom management but in a very small number of cases that you could count on one hand, there were difficulties connecting with 14 year old girls and red haired guys, actually only one. I learned from those mistakes that de-escalation is the most productive outcome. My prejudice against Math teachers aside, at least the Administrator should have been experienced enough to know this.
I won't push back at you on the role of police officers in schools in the US. I clearly do not support this and see it primarily as a systemic failure of educational institutions to evolve to meet the needs of children in current society. That would be a long, wide ranging and complex discussion fraught with ideological pitfalls.
I also will not bite at the morsel you dangle on management experience. I saw you using this trope in the other thread to put down another poster in your inimical style. Suffice to say that I have been a manager in both the public and private sector and it is not my thing. I had successes and failures and I have experienced good and bad managers. You equate your experience in a 'closed system' with the high school institutional context. I think your closed system is more akin to some cult like scientology or the Apple Corporation and your familiar energy multinationals rather then an institution designed for the structured development of children. My main issue with your anecdote is that you did not confront your antagonist directly and mis-used your position to resolve the problem. But that's an argument for another day.
Since this thread is starting to die and more red meat for the absolutists continues to emerge, then I guess we've almost beat'n this horse to death.
-
And the ACLU and NAACP are correct, as usual. ACLU, CCR and National Lawyers Guild has been in my corner more than once and we always won, eventually, even if one case had to go to the Supreme Court, it was then. Ah, so it was her attitude that brought on the abuse by the cop. Time for a little "attitude adjustment". Yea I bet that really helped. Had I ever done something anywhere near like that I would have been fired withing 24 hours and rightly so. America is a surveillance/police state, the cops are militarized and act like they are an occupying army, and has a school to prison pipeline. Perhaps some of the sheeple are starting to realize they can stand on their hind feet. Question authority.
" Ah, so it was her attitude that brought on the abuse by the cop."
Her attitude certainly didn't help the situation. It seems she refused requests to surrender her cell phone by her teacher, a school administrator and a school security officer.
Since requesting her cooperation failed to get the desired result, what would you have done in the exact same situation.
Resort to begging?
Personally, I would have dragged her chair, with her in it, out into the hall and walked off, leaving her sitting in the middle of the hall. I would then have called her parents and told them she was suspended from school for three days and was not permitted to bring an electronic device to school for the remainder of the school year.
If she violated that edict, she would be permanently suspended from Spring Valley High School...end of story.
Come and get her.
The security officer overreacted, as I have said several times before. He has suffered the consequences of his actions by being fired.
All she has received are commiserations from a bunch of bleeding heart liberals.
Well Chuck, I liked your story of how you bullied one of your employees because his wife was not suitably respectful to you better than your fantasy about beating up on teenage girls. What would be the effect of your Taliban approach to behaviour modification? Short term success - yes, if you define success as proving your manhood by such actions. It is interesting that you view any action that does not involve violence and 'fiats' - your word - are symptomatic of 'bleeding heart liberals'.
I know from experience that your tough guy approach to interpersonal communications only works if you are respected and with that respect comes Authority. Otherwise you are merely a dick.
One small point of correction. I believe the police officer was employed by or assigned to the school (I do not know the contractual details) as a School Resource Officer and that his duties did not or primarily did not involve enforcement. As I understand from the police supervisor's interview on CNN, a School Resource Office is responsible for educational programs. Referring to that officer as a Security Officer, may be misleading.
-
So the US election is a democratic process? I didn't know that. I always thought it was a sham.What you call chaos is actually a healthy democracy working properly...who ever said that the number of candidates for the highest office of the land should be limited to avoid chaos...
Each candidate brings something to the table...experience, passion, a wealth of knowledge, and ideas to reign in spending, reduce taxes, and address the immigration problem...
What have the Dems got...a socialist, a prevaricator...there is not a candidate among the Dems that will not continue reckless spending and taxing...and obstructing justice to protect their own...
Anyone that proffers it's the borrow and spend democrats creating the national debt is quoting FOX news talking point for dullards. Google a chart of the national debt during the presidencies of the past 50 years. Note Ronnie Reagen was big but so were the bushes.
Let's go all the way back to 1776.
1. Presidents numbered 1 through 43 (7/4/1776 - 1/20/09) a total of 233 years, 8 months.
Accumulated national debt - $10,669,804,864,612 ($10.67 Trillion)
2. President number 44 (1/20/2009 - 11/4/2015) a total of 6 years 10+ months.
Increased national debt - $7,798,493,661,748 ($7.80 Trillion)
But let's blame the Republicans, shall we?
The past master of offering seemingly objective and innocuous information that misleads, obfuscates and confounds in service of some petty ideological point. Don't they teach economics in Texas Charles? Terms like relative value, Purchasing Power Parity or Inflation don't ring any bells? Or would actual real and accurate technical information not convey your point as well?
Raising debt to invest in infrastructure creates wealth. Using it to pay for operations and budget support is what the previous governments of Greece did and look what happened to them. Debt in itself is not evil but a necessary part of the financial system. Lots of Republicans including the 2nd most popular candidate, Trump, got rich on debt.
Simplistic is your schtick and I guess it has worked for you with your fellow travellers over the eons.
-
This issue has long since moved on from being about sexual activity with a minor. This issue is about the lack of integrity of the US criminal justice system. Polanski was set to accept a plea bargain that would have dropped the initial charges and I believe he was persuaded that the deal would include no jail time. The LA District Attorney's office apparently reneged on this deal and so Polanski fled.
Whether you believe that he should or should not serve time in prison, the fact that this crime was committed in 1977 means that he would have long since been discharged from any penalties, which under the plea deal would have probably included some sort of probation. He would have been a convicted criminal but under the standards of the 70's may even have been able to expunge his record.
That the US criminal justice system has no mechanism to hold prosecuting attorneys accountable for their misdeeds is appalling. This is not a sex abuse case. It is a case of injustice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Free_Roman_Polanski%22_Petition#Reactions_to_the_arrest
-
It seems the only ones who don't see this are the majority of Americans.
Talk about closing your eyes and giving up personal freedoms with a welcoming embrace
The law has long ruled that children don't have the same rights that adults to. At some point, children have to obey. In that regard Americans aren't giving up any rights.
I repeat. The school has the right to exclude and expel any child who won't obey the rules. This gal became a trespasser by not leaving where she was when told to. She could have been permanently expelled from school.
I repeat that it sounds to me as if the officer's handling of the situation was over the top, but the girl had put herself in a position where disobeying was committing the crime of trespass. I too expect the officer to be disciplined and the school and police department to be sued.
These are two separate situations - what the girl did wrong and what the officer did wrong.
Cheers.
Crime of trespass, sitting in her school classroom?
Wow, what a warped POV
Check out post #89 above. Those are the actual school rules for the Spring Valley High School attended by the young lady in question.
Her refusal to surrender the cell phone to her teacher, an administrator and, finally the security officer, were in direct violation of her school rules.
Maybe where you live rules don't have to be obeyed.
Apparently not so at Spring Valley High School.
None of the four stated consequences of violations of cell phone usage at Spring Valley HS provide for exclusion and prosecution for criminal trespass. The entire notion that the school's property rights justify physical and violent restraint of students under indictment of criminal trespass is a complete red herring. An absolute non starter. The school policy indicated that consequences of non compliance with the cell phone policy follow District guidelines, which you do not specify but could in fact include suspension or expulsion. Neither the Police Officer nor the the teacher would have any rights under any policy to immediately expel or prosecute any student. The School Administrator may have some authority under the District guidelines but we don't know this at the moment.
What the far right, police state boosters have neglected to address is that the African-American female child was a minor with different legal expectations and provisions. Children go to school to learn. Part of this learning includes appropriate social interaction. Part of this learning is also making mistakes. The Police Officer was not a minor. He was an adult with a duty of care to the protection of that child and a supposed ability to make adult decisions. He is rightfully suffering the consequences of his decision which no doubt was informed by his training under the culture of institutionalised violence of the current law enforcement system in the United States that is brutal, primitive and self serving.
Why was this minor not treated with the respect that she deserved, even while she was being disrespectful to Authority. Because Authority in this case were too concerned about their own small minded concerns and not with their responsibilities towards the child. And I do certainly believe that the attitude of the representatives of Authority in this case was influenced by skin colour. There are references on this thread to 'thug' which is now a racist code word against African American youth.
-
It's not the US justice system. He never set foot on US soil and therefore never gained any US rights. He was a prisoner of war under military jurisdiction and law on foreign soil.
If he had been brought to the US, which rarely if ever happens to prisoners of war, he would have gained rights of people in the US.
The rules for trying or convicting or detaining someone caught on a battlefield on foreign soil are completely different from US criminal law.
In the article there is a long laundry list of things he was accused of doing and belonging to and the US military isn't in the habit of turning that type of person loose when captured as a prisoner of war.
Cheers.
Sorry you are right let me rephrase : 13 years without charge is the current low for the US judicial system and military justice. He was on a US military base. He should have received due process. He was accused and not proven guilty. Sadly being accused seems to be the new guilty. Oh well, so much for the US constitution. It was a nice idea.
You're still missing it. This wasn't the US justice system. This was military detention of a prisoner of war on foreign soil. He had no rights.
The US Constitution covers US citizens, not foreigners on foreign soil. The US military base is irrelevant and immaterial as it operates under military law as pertains to prisoners of war.
We need to shift gears from US civilian law pertaining to citizens or people inside the US and think of foreign soil and the military prisoner of war system if we're to understand how this can happen.
Cheers.
Perhaps you did not receive the memo? To maintain this legal fiction created by a cabal of evangelical neocons wanting to proselytise their flawed republican-style democracy to the rest of the world backed a a bloated, out-of-control security state, you are not allowed to use the words 'Prisoner of War'
"The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war." - See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/prisoners-of-war/#sthash.EHfmmjhn.dpuf
If you intend to keep pushing this canard in the face of an overwhelming majority of the world's population who now know the truth, then you should stick to the words approved by your fellow travellers.
Guantanamo is designed to avoid any recognition of any rights except 'might'. US foreign policy under the neocons is Might makes Right. Obama tried to mitigate this but is clearly trapped by the self interests of the Security State. At least he can now achieve his first term campaign promise and close that abomination. It would be nice if he also respected international sovereignty and voided the questionable lease and returned the land to Cuba.
-
I too think it sounds as if the officer overreacted, but I disagree with those who say it wasn't (technically) a police matter. If I read it right it sounds to me as if the girl was committing the crime of trespass.
I was once in court on a different real estate matter and observed a young man being arraigned for criminal trespass. That defendant didn't believe he had trespassed for his own various reasons. I'll never forget what the judge told him. He said "There are only two kinds of property in this world. There is your property and there is 'not your property'. It's up to you to know the difference".
When someone such as a school has the care, custody and control of real estate and in this case a school, they can exclude anyone else from the property. The moment that girl refused to stand up and leave the room she technically committed the crime of trespass. Yes she did. Right there it became a police matter and the officer had a legal duty to remove the girl.
I totally disagree with how he handled it. I think he should have, after exhausting pleading with her, simply cited her for trespassing and summoned her to court to face the charges. That's IF he felt he needed to play rough. Then if she failed to appear at her court hearing she would have been arrested for that. The escalation could have gone in steps until she learned that she had to obey authorities in the school and with the police.
As it is I think the police have egg all over their faces for acting too quickly with too much force rather than citing her and giving her a chance to wake up during the delay before her hearing.
Cheers.
The republican negative conception of political liberty of course does not extend to black teenage females apparently.
"Republican freedom merely requires the absence of something, namely, the absence of any structural dependence on arbitrary power or domination"http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/#RepVerNegLib
Furthermore, your apocryphal judge did not include the idea of public property in his world view. I guess because that is a liberal concept. However, a school is an agency of the State, a State which requires mandatory schooling for children. It cannot exclude children from that requirement without due process. The idea that a child loses legal rights on the instance of non compliance with some instruction is insane. Perhaps you might demonstrate where that has been tested in law? As a student enrolled in that school she had every right to be there and the removal of that right is subject to legal protections and requirements for due process.
Finally, it is universally accepted that schools and individual teachers are in 'loco parentis', meaning that they take on the role of the parent in terms of having a duty of care towards the students. The teacher, administrator and all persons involved in this incident had a responsibility to treat the individual with respect and as a person who is there to be educated. In this case, the math's teacher can shove his calculus up his clacker and should have acted like an educator with a responsibility towards the development of that child.
I just don't get why people who call themselves republicans don't actually live by or apply republican principles to situations in life. I guess that's what the tea-baggers are about.
You said: "However, a school is an agency of the State, a State which requires mandatory schooling for children. It cannot exclude children from that requirement without due process."
You're nuts. Schools expel kids regularly at the school's discretion, sometimes permanently. NO kid has a right to go to school. He has a legal duty to go to school but if he doesn't obey the rules he loses his right to go to school. He has legal duties to go to school and to obey the rules - both legal duties.
The school has lawful care, custody and control of the school premises and can and may exclude anyone from the property.
If the school tells a kid to leave any part of the premises and the kid refuses, that kid is a criminal trespasser. End of.
A little early in the conversation for personal attacks I think. Who said that schools do not expel students? I certainly did not. I stated that students cannot be excluded without due process. Not standing up on the order of a school employee would, in most cases, not meet the standard for expulsion. Yet you claim that the moment the child in question did not obey that instruction, then she immediately lost her rights because the school's property rights trumps all else. This according to your overhearing some unknown, un-named and anonymous Judge.
I point to my lack of understanding caused by the inconsistency in the viewpoint of a person who has claimed many times that you are not required to respond to any police officer who stops you and you are not breaking any law and you do not even have to give your name and yet this young, black, female student does not have the same privelege. I made reference to the political element in this exchange, not the personal one.
Again, perhaps you can demonstrate where a student has been prosecuted for criminal trespass as a result of losing their right to be on school property due to disobeying an instruction from a school employee whether that employee is ancillary staff or teaching staff.
-
I too think it sounds as if the officer overreacted, but I disagree with those who say it wasn't (technically) a police matter. If I read it right it sounds to me as if the girl was committing the crime of trespass.
I was once in court on a different real estate matter and observed a young man being arraigned for criminal trespass. That defendant didn't believe he had trespassed for his own various reasons. I'll never forget what the judge told him. He said "There are only two kinds of property in this world. There is your property and there is 'not your property'. It's up to you to know the difference".
When someone such as a school has the care, custody and control of real estate and in this case a school, they can exclude anyone else from the property. The moment that girl refused to stand up and leave the room she technically committed the crime of trespass. Yes she did. Right there it became a police matter and the officer had a legal duty to remove the girl.
I totally disagree with how he handled it. I think he should have, after exhausting pleading with her, simply cited her for trespassing and summoned her to court to face the charges. That's IF he felt he needed to play rough. Then if she failed to appear at her court hearing she would have been arrested for that. The escalation could have gone in steps until she learned that she had to obey authorities in the school and with the police.
As it is I think the police have egg all over their faces for acting too quickly with too much force rather than citing her and giving her a chance to wake up during the delay before her hearing.
Cheers.
The republican negative conception of political liberty of course does not extend to black teenage females apparently.
"Republican freedom merely requires the absence of something, namely, the absence of any structural dependence on arbitrary power or domination"http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/#RepVerNegLib
Furthermore, your apocryphal judge did not include the idea of public property in his world view. I guess because that is a liberal concept. However, a school is an agency of the State, a State which requires mandatory schooling for children. It cannot exclude children from that requirement without due process. The idea that a child loses legal rights on the instance of non compliance with some instruction is insane. Perhaps you might demonstrate where that has been tested in law? As a student enrolled in that school she had every right to be there and the removal of that right is subject to legal protections and requirements for due process.
Finally, it is universally accepted that schools and individual teachers are in 'loco parentis', meaning that they take on the role of the parent in terms of having a duty of care towards the students. The teacher, administrator and all persons involved in this incident had a responsibility to treat the individual with respect and as a person who is there to be educated. In this case, the math's teacher can shove his calculus up his clacker and should have acted like an educator with a responsibility towards the development of that child.
I just don't get why people who call themselves republicans don't actually live by or apply republican principles to situations in life. I guess that's what the tea-baggers are about.
Do you know for sure that NeverSure is a Republican or are you just guessing because he advocated not using force?
You may use the search function to view posting history. Be careful not to be accused of stalking though.
I think the point of my mild push back on Nevermore is that is being selectively a republican.
-
I too think it sounds as if the officer overreacted, but I disagree with those who say it wasn't (technically) a police matter. If I read it right it sounds to me as if the girl was committing the crime of trespass.
I was once in court on a different real estate matter and observed a young man being arraigned for criminal trespass. That defendant didn't believe he had trespassed for his own various reasons. I'll never forget what the judge told him. He said "There are only two kinds of property in this world. There is your property and there is 'not your property'. It's up to you to know the difference".
When someone such as a school has the care, custody and control of real estate and in this case a school, they can exclude anyone else from the property. The moment that girl refused to stand up and leave the room she technically committed the crime of trespass. Yes she did. Right there it became a police matter and the officer had a legal duty to remove the girl.
I totally disagree with how he handled it. I think he should have, after exhausting pleading with her, simply cited her for trespassing and summoned her to court to face the charges. That's IF he felt he needed to play rough. Then if she failed to appear at her court hearing she would have been arrested for that. The escalation could have gone in steps until she learned that she had to obey authorities in the school and with the police.
As it is I think the police have egg all over their faces for acting too quickly with too much force rather than citing her and giving her a chance to wake up during the delay before her hearing.
Cheers.
The republican negative conception of political liberty of course does not extend to black teenage females apparently.
"Republican freedom merely requires the absence of something, namely, the absence of any structural dependence on arbitrary power or domination"http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/#RepVerNegLib
Furthermore, your apocryphal judge did not include the idea of public property in his world view. I guess because that is a liberal concept. However, a school is an agency of the State, a State which requires mandatory schooling for children. It cannot exclude children from that requirement without due process. The idea that a child loses legal rights on the instance of non compliance with some instruction is insane. Perhaps you might demonstrate where that has been tested in law? As a student enrolled in that school she had every right to be there and the removal of that right is subject to legal protections and requirements for due process.
Finally, it is universally accepted that schools and individual teachers are in 'loco parentis', meaning that they take on the role of the parent in terms of having a duty of care towards the students. The teacher, administrator and all persons involved in this incident had a responsibility to treat the individual with respect and as a person who is there to be educated. In this case, the math's teacher can shove his calculus up his clacker and should have acted like an educator with a responsibility towards the development of that child.
I just don't get why people who call themselves republicans don't actually live by or apply republican principles to situations in life. I guess that's what the tea-baggers are about.
-
So Mr Lostboy, you raised some good points. Sorry to be on the defensive so quickly but I was expecting a response similar to Up2u2. Your response however showed a good degree of professional knowledge.
To clarify, I have never been a "denier" of climate change. I have seen professionally the effect of pollution both aqueous and terrestrial. My experience of aerial pollution is limited, but if mankind can cause such damage to the 2 former it would be expected that we can damage, or change the latter. My worry is that the GW debate is featuring people with a rather more political agenda than an environmentalist one. Of course man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but my contention is, in a dynamic atmosphere how can you actually quantify it and then predict what the Earth's climate will be in 100 years. Furthermore by using wild claims (or more correctly, what are seen by lots of people as wild claims) the GW lobby is actually having a negative effect on the environmental professionals trying to combat pollution in all its facets.
What I do have issue with you is over the increasing population. You state it was a 70s scare, now defunct. I point you to that article I mentioned to Up2u2 in the Guardian last year that said the scientific consensus that the Earth's population would peak in 2050 looks like being wrong and the population will keep increasing to 12 Billion or more by 2100. No mention of thereafter. Your mention of falling birthrates when GDP increases has happened in 1st world countries, but when a country has no social security or old age pension then having a large family is a way of ensuring you will be taken care of in old age. This has always been the case in 3rd world countries and even if they could raise their GDP it would take several generations for the benefit to be realised, then too late 12 billion have arrived. But the elephant in the room of your argument is all the major religions are opposed to family planning and that is where the Pope came in.
The problem with food technologies is there is a big public resistance to GM food and we are yet to see the long term effects of such technology. Furthermore all it would need is something similar to potato blight to occur to a major food source to see a replay of the Irish famine multiplied by x.
I have dealt with the USEPA on several occasions and found them so helpful on specific matters, much more so than the UK's EA. I have also dealt with big multinational corporations and know profit is everything and the environment is pretty way down on their list, but they do wish to look "green" even when they are most certainly not. The latest problem for them is "Corporate Social Responsibility" - there's an ISO standard for that, which is so important for the world's population and if applied worldwide would be a real game changer.
So call me a conservative, OK, but I am in neither "camp" but I am worried when science is used as a political weapon. Predicting what will happen over the next century can be given a qualified judgement, but when someone says "it's true, the science is proven" when it's a prediction based on computer modelling then my scientific background says "woo wait a minute !". You can disagree with me, your choice, but that is my view and it will take "road to Damascus" moment to change it.
On climate change, you can really only be a Denier or an Alarmist. That is the nature of ideological disputes. As a socialist, I am automatically aligned to the Alarmists. Half the fun of hanging around on TVF World News is poking the eye of the opponent.
I do not subscribe to your views on population. There will always be technological solutions. Food technology does not only mean GMO. I am quite agnostic on that issue. Besides, while earth remains a closed eco-system, there will be natural methods of population control. Technology too will contribute to the lifting of the living standards of people in emerging economies. Old models of infrastructure based on mega-projects, huge capex and lots of cement and other resources are already being overturned by technology. It has been happening i the communications industry for decades. It is now happening in the energy industry. I am very bullish on economic progress and the impact of wealth generation on poverty alleviation and, ultimately, reduced population growth.
I do not worry too much about religious views on birth control. Most people, including the 'faithful' ignore such silliness. The more societies move towards agnosticism and find alternatives for spiritual well being, the less influence these archaic institutions will have. Again, more economic development and higher standards of living will accelerate this process.
Much of your rationale is based on existing models e.g. the need for large families in under developed agrarian economies, the exploitation of the genetics of food crops for corporate wealth generation etc. If you try to apply these models to problems of the future, they won't work. I am a strong believer in social progress - look it up, it is actually a 'thing' - not in the imperialist sense but in the optimistic sense.
-
Why don't you guys get a room.
Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!
Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.
I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.
These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.
The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.
The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.
At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.
There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.
I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.
The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.
And yet, none of the strategies that you have detailed are working sufficiently to make a dent in the increase ( or so we are told ). I'm interested in solution/s that can be applied in all countries, China and India as well, that are realistic, effective, affordable and that WORK.
You mention public transport, but countries like New Zealand have minimal intercity public transport, so most people drive. Some have good public transport but too expensive.
I have no problem with conferences, but flying to them rather than using video conferencing is just hypocrisy.
This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers.
LOL. Do you mean those people that are obsessed with technology and spend their days conversing with their imaginary friends? I haven't seen one that gives a **** about the environment, as they race around in their expensive cars wasting fuel. As for Thailand, they all want a car, and the town I live in is fast becoming a permanent traffic jam, as the roads were designed for m'bikes.
Otherwise, Thailand is well served by excellent bus and rail options for long distance travel- no need to drive a car.
While I do not believe that GW can be reversed, if in fact it is man made, and I am not convinced, even if the Pope does wear a very silly hat, that it is, I would like to see a restriction on the infernal private motor car. It is a pestilence on the planet, wasting vast areas of land and consuming zillions of $ that would be far better spent on affordable public transport options.
Lastly, while the human destroyers of the planet as we know it continue to increase at such a fast rate, no strategy will succeed in reversing anything. Population control is the only thing that will succeed in saving the planet as we know it. However, that is not going to happen, so I have no hope of a man made solution, though nature/ Gaia may have a trick or two to rectify the situation. Ebola perhaps?
I have no idea if the solutions i mentioned have had measurable impact. I will let the scientists who receive all these supposed billions of dollars work on their models and calculations. I do believe that an amalgamation of strategies will be more effective than big bang attempts. Australia does not have a good record in implementing big bang solutions to environmental issues. You may look up the Queensland cane toad, now a feral species or the introduction of myxomatosis to try and control the feral rabbit population. I also don't quite agree with you bout India and China or any of the emerging economies for that matter. Why should not their citizens aspire to a better standard of living just as most of us in the Western developed world have enjoyed? You can't change human nature. Better to work with it. Strategies to protect the environment will work when people can make money from them. Or, alternatively, save money or reduce losses. This is why renewable energy developed so quickly around the world. It cost billions in subsidies. Spain almost went bankrupt. German electricity prices are outrageous. But it worked and innovation is driving the price down to the point where solar is now almost equivalent to gas fired power production. Environmental protection need not be a zero sum game. The emerging economies can still benefit and achieve high standards of living.
Industrial and post industrial societies are quite selfish. The baby-boomer generation may be the last of these selfish generations. The resources probably don't exist to allow such exploitative societies. You may deride millennials for their tech and self absorption but they will be the ones who have to deal with diminishing resources. Stephen Baxter is a British physicist. He is also a science fiction author of some note. He is a very deep thinker of the near and far future. He new series of books starting with 'Proxima' provides very thought provoking reading about how a near future society copes with what we have left them.
but as a coffee drinker on rare occasions when not clipping coupons or nose hair I wonder where you guys drink (and yes if you really do ) your coffee. Mine I get OS, bring in and make myself but I digress
Double digit price hike for Electricity (Nov 16, 2015)
in General Topics
Posted
There is a National Uniform Tariff (NUT) in Thailand. MEA and PEA charge the same rates for each different customer class.
There has not been any increase in the base rate. As per the presentation by the ERC Commissioner posted earlier, the electricity tariff is comprised of 3 components; the base rate; the Ft; and, VAT.
The base rate averages around 3.9 baht/kWh (depending on the different customer classes). The base rate is reset each 3 0 5 years by the ERC. A project commenced in 2011 to reset the base rate but the new rates have not yet been announced.
The Ft is set every 4 months by the ERC. VAT is changed only by Government order.
If you are being charged higher tariffs, then something else is at play. I cannot determine what might be happening based on the information supplied so far. PEA, MEA and EGAT have no discretion to change any tariff. The tariffs are ordered by ERC according to the structure that I outlined above.