I hear that at many places in the United States (although I'm sure it's
not the only country in the world with this problem, but I get the
impression that it's one of the worst of its kind) boards of education
are often staffed by people who are completely illiterate in terms of
science and education. And it's precisely these people who decide what
is and isn't taught at schools. Apparently they get to those positions
for political reasons and because of a buddy system, not because they
would be the most competent for that position.

Thus you get things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNspEpMK7FE

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/4/2012 1:30 AM, Warp wrote:
> I hear that at many places in the United States (although I'm sure it's
> not the only country in the world with this problem, but I get the
> impression that it's one of the worst of its kind) boards of education
> are often staffed by people who are completely illiterate in terms of
> science and education. And it's precisely these people who decide what
> is and isn't taught at schools. Apparently they get to those positions
> for political reasons and because of a buddy system, not because they
> would be the most competent for that position.
>
> Thus you get things like this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNspEpMK7FE
>
Yeah, sadly, they have no qualifications, often, other than that they 
support the politics which ever set of morons happen to outnumber the 
sane people at the time. You get similar stupidities in the schools 
themselves, where the administration staff is more likely to have a 
business degree, than an education degree, because, you know.. this 
isn't like say, rocket science, where you need the thing to actually 
work, and have to spend real money on things that really work, but more 
like a fast food restaurant, where the point is the spend as little 
money as possible, on the cheapest possible things, needed to achieve 
merely *adequate* results (and, as can be seen in right wing politics, 
if its not working, the solution is, apparently, to close the failing 
business, and make everyone attend, and overburden, the ones that 
actually provide adequate service). But, its still the fast food of 
education. No one, unless you can afford it, gets to have, for free, a 5 
star school, and if you can afford it, then... well, you just have to 
put up with the ideology, the bad taste in decoration, and all the rest 
of the pretentious crap that goes along with someone serving you 
lobster, instead of fish tacos, containing someone dyed to look like 
crab (or the educational equivalent). And, of course, certain things 
will *never* be on the menu, even if they are needed there, because the 
chef doesn't believe in them.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-04 04:30, Warp a écrit :
> I hear that at many places in the United States (although I'm sure it's
> not the only country in the world with this problem, but I get the
> impression that it's one of the worst of its kind) boards of education
> are often staffed by people who are completely illiterate in terms of
> science and education. And it's precisely these people who decide what
> is and isn't taught at schools. Apparently they get to those positions
> for political reasons and because of a buddy system, not because they
> would be the most competent for that position.
>
> Thus you get things like this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNspEpMK7FE
>

In many countries of the western hemisphere, the religious factions feel 
they are losing ground to the godless heathens, so they will sometimes 
try to "regain control" by trying to run for office and steering the 
country back into the Right Path(tm).  In many cases, the only places 
they will be able to win elections are local elected offices that are 
not very popular and where the candidates often run unopposed.

If you think about it, very few people will be interested in running for 
a board of education position.  This is not a very glamorous position. 
Therefore those who run usually have an axe to grind with the way the 
schools are currently run, so you will usually end up with very 
polarized views.  Too much sports / Not enough sports.  Too much 
religion / Not enough religion.  Too much of THIS religion / Not enough 
of THAT religion.  Etc...

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 04:30:43 -0500, Warp wrote:

> but I get the impression that it's one of the worst of its kind) boards
> of education are often staffed by people who are completely illiterate
> in terms of science and education.

Not just BoEs, but legislative bodies.  One of our US house of 
representatives members on the science committee thinks that evolution 
and the big bang theory are "from the devil".

We've got representatives who talk about it being God's will when a woman 
is raped that the baby be carried to full term, and that if it's a 
"legitimate rape", the female body has "ways of shutting that down" (so 
the woman doesn't get pregnant - IOW, if she wasn't 'legitimately' raped, 
she must've 'wanted it' and if she got pregnant, that means that it 
wasn't a "real" rape.  I guess.)

It's a sad, sad state of affairs.

We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.  
If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be 
allowed to hold political office.

But I'm saying that partly because I'm getting absolutely sick and tired 
of this election.  Tomorrow can't be over soon enough.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.

I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like the 
Dark Ages...

Post a reply to this message

> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
> allowed to hold political office.

No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise 
they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so 
easy it's pointless.

Post a reply to this message

Am 06.11.2012 11:12, schrieb scott:
>> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
>> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
>> allowed to hold political office.
>
> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
> easy it's pointless.

A "wisdom test" seems to me closer to the mark. While stupid people are 
dangerous, some highly intelligent ones aren't any better.

Post a reply to this message

Le 06/11/2012 13:04, clipka a écrit :
> Am 06.11.2012 11:12, schrieb scott:
>>> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
>>> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
>>> allowed to hold political office.
>>
>> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
>> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
>> easy it's pointless.
> 
> A "wisdom test" seems to me closer to the mark. While stupid people are
> dangerous, some highly intelligent ones aren't any better.
> 


Some "common sense" tests, as well as a reality check of current price
should also be mandatory.

Some of our politics are so disconnected from normal life they would be
ready to say the price of bread, butter, local transportation ticket or
meat is ten or more time the actual price. Or the opposite direction (if
they got a life, twenty years ago). They now only bother to check before
the election, as long as they do not mix their notes...

And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
that amount. (the argument about corruption is void and demonstrated so
by their predecessors: no amount of salary for the politics is to
protect against the lobbies, so no point in big money any more: you want
the power while pretending to serve the community, we do not pay more
than a minimal full-time job. In fact, the surface-cleaning people in
charge of the toilet might get paid better than the president... oh dreams)

I, for once, regret the old Athenian random designation system: you get
in charge for a year, randomly chosen amongst the voters, and cannot
resign before term.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise 
> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so 
> easy it's pointless.

Who exactly voted for those scientifically illiterate people to be put
in the government's scientific committee?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Not just BoEs, but legislative bodies.  One of our US house of 
> representatives members on the science committee thinks that evolution 
> and the big bang theory are "from the devil".

The people who appoint completely incompetent people to those positions
would certain not want for a completely incompetent person to perform
eg. heart surgery on them. I would like to see the politician who allows
a witch doctor who thinks that heart problems are caused by evil spirits
to perform surgery on them. Yet they put completely incompetent people on
the science committee?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue 06/11/12 13:45, Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
>> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
>> easy it's pointless.
>
> Who exactly voted for those scientifically illiterate people to be put
> in the government's scientific committee?

Yes that was exactly my point, unless the voters are "intelligent" 
enough they will not know/care how scientifically literate the people 
are that are working for the government they chose.

Post a reply to this message

> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
> that amount.

You pay peanuts you get monkeys.

> I, for once, regret the old Athenian random designation system: you get
> in charge for a year, randomly chosen amongst the voters, and cannot
> resign before term.

You don't think some people would be better at running a country than 
others?

Post a reply to this message

Le 06/11/2012 15:24, scott a écrit :
>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
>> that amount.
> 
> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
wages... for everyone.

> 
>> I, for once, regret the old Athenian random designation system: you get
>> in charge for a year, randomly chosen amongst the voters, and cannot
>> resign before term.
> 
> You don't think some people would be better at running a country than
> others?


Of course, but election is no better than random, and it might even be
worse.

Let's compare an honest modest citizen and a corrupted Mafiosi with huge
financial support from deleter industries (they want to get baby as a
product, to be able to sell it as a whole as well as in pieces... within
asbestos... to the Hollywood's forever young stars... )  :
* random : it's 50/50
* election : guess who has the most valuable campaign and get elected ?

Post a reply to this message

>>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
>>> that amount.
>>
>> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
>
> Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
> wages... for everyone.

Some jobs only need monkeys though, surely you're not saying the amount 
of skill/experience needed in politics is equal to the lowest skilled 
jobs in society? The more you pay below the "market rate" for 
politicians jobs the fewer good people you'll have to choose from.

>>> I, for once, regret the old Athenian random designation system: you get
>>> in charge for a year, randomly chosen amongst the voters, and cannot
>>> resign before term.
>>
>> You don't think some people would be better at running a country than
>> others?
>
>
> Of course, but election is no better than random, and it might even be
> worse.
>
> Let's compare an honest modest citizen and a corrupted Mafiosi with huge
> financial support from deleter industries (they want to get baby as a
> product, to be able to sell it as a whole as well as in pieces... within
> asbestos... to the Hollywood's forever young stars... )  :
> * random : it's 50/50
> * election : guess who has the most valuable campaign and get elected ?

Well you can put a cap on the amount companies are allowed to give to 
political parties (or just ban it totally) and force them to make all 
donations public (if they don't already). But again it comes back to the 
intelligence of the voters if they vote in someone like the above.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/5/2012 5:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 04:30:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> but I get the impression that it's one of the worst of its kind) boards
>> of education are often staffed by people who are completely illiterate
>> in terms of science and education.
>
> Not just BoEs, but legislative bodies.  One of our US house of
> representatives members on the science committee thinks that evolution
> and the big bang theory are "from the devil".
>
> We've got representatives who talk about it being God's will when a woman
> is raped that the baby be carried to full term, and that if it's a
> "legitimate rape", the female body has "ways of shutting that down" (so
> the woman doesn't get pregnant - IOW, if she wasn't 'legitimately' raped,
> she must've 'wanted it' and if she got pregnant, that means that it
> wasn't a "real" rape.  I guess.)
>
> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>
> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
> allowed to hold political office.
>
> But I'm saying that partly because I'm getting absolutely sick and tired
> of this election.  Tomorrow can't be over soon enough.
>
> Jim
>
Unfortunately, if the wrong person wins, it won't be over tomorrow. 
Meanwhile, most of the news seems to have devolved into discussion of 
which one is ahead, not issues. As one cartoon put it, "If Obama wins 
tomorrow, it will be devastating to Romney's tracking polls." lol

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2012 8:01 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid only
>>>> that amount.
>>>
>>> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
>>
>> Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
>> wages... for everyone.
>
> Some jobs only need monkeys though, surely you're not saying the amount
> of skill/experience needed in politics is equal to the lowest skilled
> jobs in society? The more you pay below the "market rate" for
> politicians jobs the fewer good people you'll have to choose from.
>
Yeah, well. Even monkeys need to eat, and as things stand, the view, of 
some of the wackos running, seems to be that it costs too much to buy 
them bananas, so its, somehow, their own damn fault that they have to 
eat their own feces. Case in point - My work doesn't pay its lowest 
level employees more than minimum wages. They, if lucky, get 20-30 hours 
a week, average, and then only if unionized, and the company just tacked 
on a $5 a week health care charge, then gave them a 10 cent raise. So.. 
They plan to let everyone work 50 hours to make up the difference? Of 
course not... And the current contract "explicitly" states that those 
employees will *never* get a raise, since no one **ever** receives a 
performance raise either, unless the state raises the minimum.

So, yeah, I would love to see the damn congress idiots, and senate, at 
the minimum, have to try to live on that kind of wage, especially since 
they don't seem to think they have to actually bloody spend time 
working, either.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:27:24 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
> 
> I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like the
> Dark Ages...

I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the dark 
ages, certainly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:12:49 +0000, scott wrote:

>> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
>> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
>> allowed to hold political office.
> 
> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
> easy it's pointless.

That works, too, but candidates should be required to have a basic 
understanding of how reality actually works.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:43:36 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Le 06/11/2012 15:24, scott a écrit :
>>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid
>>> only that amount.
>> 
>> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
> 
> Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
> wages... for everyone.

As well as benefits.  I've always said that (for example) if the US 
government got what those on the bottom end of the scale got for 
healthcare (ie, emergency room visits only when things get really bad), 
those who are the worst off would be better off, because the legislators 
wouldn't put up with that.

I'd also be happy if while in office, the candidates were given basic 
living quarters and a stipend to live on rather than a salary.

Living in modest accommodations with a modest salary and entry-level 
benefits would change the makeup of those who participate - they'd have 
to want to be there to help the people, not to further their own careers.

But elections would also need complete public financing and no private 
fund raising of any kind - by the candidates or by PACs.  No attack ads, 
let the candidates tout their own plans on their own merits, rather than 
not having a good idea other than slamming the opposition.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:45:10 -0500, Warp wrote:

> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
>> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
>> easy it's pointless.
> 
> Who exactly voted for those scientifically illiterate people to be put
> in the government's scientific committee?

Members of the public voted them into office, but the majority party 
picks who is the chair of the internal committees, and the parties 
themselves select who represents them on the committees.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:47:44 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Not just BoEs, but legislative bodies.  One of our US house of
>> representatives members on the science committee thinks that evolution
>> and the big bang theory are "from the devil".
> 
> The people who appoint completely incompetent people to those positions
> would certain not want for a completely incompetent person to perform
> eg. heart surgery on them. I would like to see the politician who allows
> a witch doctor who thinks that heart problems are caused by evil spirits
> to perform surgery on them. Yet they put completely incompetent people
> on the science committee?

Yep.

But then again, we've got at least one representative who believes that 
vaccines cause autism, because an autistic kid's mother told her so once.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:02:45 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Unfortunately, if the wrong person wins, it won't be over tomorrow.
> Meanwhile, most of the news seems to have devolved into discussion of
> which one is ahead, not issues. As one cartoon put it, "If Obama wins
> tomorrow, it will be devastating to Romney's tracking polls." lol

That's certainly true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Yeah, well. Even monkeys need to eat, and as things stand, the view, of
> some of the wackos running, seems to be that it costs too much to buy
> them bananas, so its, somehow, their own damn fault that they have to
> eat their own feces. Case in point - My work doesn't pay its lowest
> level employees more than minimum wages. They, if lucky, get 20-30 hours
> a week, average, and then only if unionized, and the company just tacked
> on a $5 a week health care charge, then gave them a 10 cent raise. So..
> They plan to let everyone work 50 hours to make up the difference? Of
> course not... And the current contract "explicitly" states that those
> employees will *never* get a raise, since no one **ever** receives a
> performance raise either, unless the state raises the minimum.

I guess they find it incredibly hard to find anyone to work for them then?

> So, yeah, I would love to see the damn congress idiots, and senate, at
> the minimum, have to try to live on that kind of wage, especially since
> they don't seem to think they have to actually bloody spend time
> working, either.

There's nothing to stop the above people working for your company on the 
minimum wage deciding to go into politics.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK politicians salaries are 
pretty mediocre compared to equivalent jobs in industry. For example our 
prime minister has a salary of £142k, in industry someone in charge of 
what 50-200 people (depending on the industry) could probably be on that 
salary and have a fraction of the responsibility the PM has.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:27:49 +0000, scott wrote:

> There's nothing to stop the above people working for your company on the
> minimum wage deciding to go into politics.

Other than, perhaps, their sense of dignity.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But then again, we've got at least one representative who believes that 
> vaccines cause autism, because an autistic kid's mother told her so once.

It's curious how the word of a few laymen, with no education nor experience
in the required fields of science, completely trump the thousands and
thousands of hours of scientific experimentation and testing, hundreds
of extensive clinical trials involving thousands of people, all performed
by diverse scientists from around the world, from different countries,
backgrounds and cultures (and who can't possible *all* of them have the
same agenda and be part of the same conspiracy.)

There is, in fact, a psychological phenomenon behind all this. I wrote an
article about that very subject here:

http://grindedgear.blogspot.fi/2012/10/people-are-really-bad-at-grasping.html

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/11/2012 4:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:27:49 +0000, scott wrote:
>
>> There's nothing to stop the above people working for your company on the
>> minimum wage deciding to go into politics.
>
> Other than, perhaps, their sense of dignity.
>


LOL +1

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:34:38 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It's curious how the word of a few laymen, with no education nor
> experience in the required fields of science, completely trump the
> thousands and thousands of hours of scientific experimentation and
> testing, hundreds of extensive clinical trials involving thousands of
> people, all performed by diverse scientists from around the world, from
> different countries, backgrounds and cultures (and who can't possible
> *all* of them have the same agenda and be part of the same conspiracy.)

You'd think so, but many people seem to think that their belief and 
ignorance trumps actual knowledge.

xkcd yesterday/today summed it up pretty well, I thought.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/11/2012 7:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You'd think so, but many people seem to think that their belief and
> ignorance trumps actual knowledge.

That is what faith means. I believe it without proof. A plus in some 
quarters, I believe.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 7:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > You'd think so, but many people seem to think that their belief and
> > ignorance trumps actual knowledge.

> That is what faith means. I believe it without proof. A plus in some 
> quarters, I believe.

Why is it that in many religions (and also in many superstitious belief
systems) faith is considered a virtue? And they are explicitly referring
to believing without actual proof or evidence. They talk as if proof would
diminish and soil the value of the belief, and that the less proof you
have, the better!

(Of course this is a defense mechanism that has naturally formed that
keeps superstitious beliefs alive, but I just can't understand why people
swallow it so easily.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/11/2012 8:07 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2012 7:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> You'd think so, but many people seem to think that their belief and
>>> ignorance trumps actual knowledge.
>
>> That is what faith means. I believe it without proof. A plus in some
>> quarters, I believe.
>
> Why is it that in many religions (and also in many superstitious belief
> systems)


Is there a difference? (I am not being funny.)


faith is considered a virtue? And they are explicitly referring
> to believing without actual proof or evidence. They talk as if proof would
> diminish and soil the value of the belief, and that the less proof you
> have, the better!

That is how I see it too.

>
> (Of course this is a defense mechanism that has naturally formed that
> keeps superstitious beliefs alive, but I just can't understand why people
> swallow it so easily.)
>

I think that there are two reasons (at least).

1/	No one wants to stop existing when they die so the believe in a 
religion that promises life after death.

2/	A lot of people find it hard to "think outside of the box" and 
believe what they are brought up with as a matter of course.

3/ Lots of people are really STUPID! (Did I say that out loud?)

BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people 
discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be 
allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:56:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> 1/	No one wants to stop existing when they die so the believe in a
> religion that promises life after death.

I disagree.  There are some who accept that that is the reality of the 
situation (to the best of anyone's actual knowledge), and are OK with 
that.

> 2/	A lot of people find it hard to "think outside of the box" and
> believe what they are brought up with as a matter of course.

That is true.  That is why the ability to reason and question is so 
important.

> 3/ Lots of people are really STUPID! (Did I say that out loud?)

That certainly is true.

> BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people
> discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be
> allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.

I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.  Objectively, 
there are ways to measure someone's competence (we do that all the time 
in the courts to determine if someone is 'competent to stand trial'), and 
a measure of competence and understanding of the issues being voted on 
would seem to be a reasonable expectation to set.

In this election, for example, I was unaware that there were two 
positions being voted on for school boards.  As I was in the voting 
booth, it was too late for me to learn something about those issues, so I 
abstained from voting.  Too many people see choices like that and decide 
that their vote doesn't matter anyways, so they pick a choice at random.

I self-determined that I was not competent to cast a vote for those two 
positions, and removed myself from the pool as I was uninformed on those 
candidates' positions.  I would have no problem with having to 
demonstrate working knowledge of the candidates' positions prior to 
casting a vote.

We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for 
many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of 
citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing 
reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/7/2012 12:27 AM, scott wrote:
>> Yeah, well. Even monkeys need to eat, and as things stand, the view, of
>> some of the wackos running, seems to be that it costs too much to buy
>> them bananas, so its, somehow, their own damn fault that they have to
>> eat their own feces. Case in point - My work doesn't pay its lowest
>> level employees more than minimum wages. They, if lucky, get 20-30 hours
>> a week, average, and then only if unionized, and the company just tacked
>> on a $5 a week health care charge, then gave them a 10 cent raise. So..
>> They plan to let everyone work 50 hours to make up the difference? Of
>> course not... And the current contract "explicitly" states that those
>> employees will *never* get a raise, since no one **ever** receives a
>> performance raise either, unless the state raises the minimum.
>
> I guess they find it incredibly hard to find anyone to work for them then?
>
To keep people yes, to find people to hire, no. See, first, its 
considered a "temp" position, which is how they got by with rewriting 
the contract. Second - some people don't do the math, and realize that, 
due to how seniority works, they will actually lose money for the first 
4-5 years, before they end up with enough hours to make up for what they 
lost. This isn't a huge problem, if they went straight from the "temp" 
position, to one of the tiny number of jobs in other departments. If, 
however, you are currently working 32 hours per week, average, and the 
"minimum" that the union requires is 20, you are losing, annually 30% of 
your hours. Given that the raise you get is probably only about 10% over 
your current pay rate, you end up losing 20% of your annual income, for 
how ever long it takes you to either a) get enough raises to make up the 
difference, or b) enough other people quit, so that you now have 
seniority enough to being making the hours needed to break even with 
your prior annual income.

We are dealing with people that can't do math without a calculator. 
Expecting them to actually comprehend why taking a "better" position is 
actually leaving them in worse financial shape is... probably expecting 
a but much...

And, then there is the fact that, in general, the only other options are:

1. Fast food, which *might* pay more in some cases.
2. Restaurants, which don't, unless you can make enough tips to exceed 
the minimum.
3. Nearly every other retail store, who uses a similar scheme to not pay you
4. The few manufacturing places, who use a different scheme, where by 
they make you work 5 days at 10 hours, and give overtime, then cut you 
back to 3 days the next week, so that, in balance, they are actually 
paying fewer people, less money, than if they worked 8 hours a day, 5 
days a week... Again.. Doing them math to prove it is not something most 
people will even bother with.

If everyone is screwing you the same way, or as much, in different ways, 
picking between places to work, unless you are lucky enough to find work 
at the 5% that still give a shit about their employees in the US, is 
kind of like having the option of taking the bullshit burger, the burro 
dropping burrito, or the dog dropping sandwich. Anyone telling you, 
"Just find a better job.", probably needs someone else to set their VCR, 
and has to ask management how to use a calculator to do a price correction.

And, no, I am not kidding. Some places, it really is this bloody stupid now.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2012 1:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:43:36 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
>> Le 06/11/2012 15:24, scott a écrit :
>>>> And for countries that have minimal wages, politics should be paid
>>>> only that amount.
>>>
>>> You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
>>
>> Well, if politics want a better salary, they can raise the minimal
>> wages... for everyone.
>
> As well as benefits.  I've always said that (for example) if the US
> government got what those on the bottom end of the scale got for
> healthcare (ie, emergency room visits only when things get really bad),
> those who are the worst off would be better off, because the legislators
> wouldn't put up with that.
>
The halfwit running against Obama actually said, in one case, that 
"government healthcare wasn't necessary, because they could just go to 
the emergency room." I am not sure which assumption in that idiot idea 
was less disturbing, the one by which it was assumed that 'preventing' 
illnesses was a bad thing, but treating everyone only when things got so 
bad it was an emergency was good, or the equally idiotic lack of 
comprehension as to where the fuck the money was coming from, if not the 
same government, to pay for the ***free*** emergency room treatment.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2012 1:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:45:10 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
>>> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
>>> easy it's pointless.
>>
>> Who exactly voted for those scientifically illiterate people to be put
>> in the government's scientific committee?
>
> Members of the public voted them into office, but the majority party
> picks who is the chair of the internal committees, and the parties
> themselves select who represents them on the committees.
>
> Jim
>
Worse than that, the parties also determine who runs. Sure, they run a 
"campaign" of sorts, to decide which asshole among the group of assholes 
who support their "current" theory of the universe will actually be on 
the final ticket, but, unless one of them has a lot of extra money from 
some place, the party determines who those assholes will actually be, 
and thus, who has any chance in hell of being on the ticket for the 
position. That this person them goes on to place people with his same 
ideological positions, and/or his parties (need to think about that next 
election...), into key positions, without public say, is about as 
incidental to the reality of the situation as being given the right to 
vote on which mafia business gets to set up in town, all other candidate 
having been summarily rejected before the public even knew a new 
business would open, and expecting, once in place, that you will have 
any chance, at all, of determining who they hired to run Guido's House 
of Bullets.

The fact that you can, in actuality, sometimes convince the Dems that 
they pick was so poor they need to replace them, while it takes a really 
inconvenient, impossible to hide or gloss over, and unrecoverable 
scandal, to cause a Republican member to quit (or a refusal to actually 
follow along with the boss' decision to hold the UN ransom for 30 
bajillion dollars.. Oh, wait, sorry, that is villains, not Republicans, 
I get them confused some times...), for one of their appointed people to 
be fired, shows that at least one side is vaguely less corrupted 
(Luigi's Tea House, perhaps?).

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2012 1:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:47:44 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Not just BoEs, but legislative bodies.  One of our US house of
>>> representatives members on the science committee thinks that evolution
>>> and the big bang theory are "from the devil".
>>
>> The people who appoint completely incompetent people to those positions
>> would certain not want for a completely incompetent person to perform
>> eg. heart surgery on them. I would like to see the politician who allows
>> a witch doctor who thinks that heart problems are caused by evil spirits
>> to perform surgery on them. Yet they put completely incompetent people
>> on the science committee?
>
> Yep.
>
> But then again, we've got at least one representative who believes that
> vaccines cause autism, because an autistic kid's mother told her so once.
>
> Jim
>
Heh, now. This BS wouldn't have lived as long it did, or maybe even have 
happened, without the help of a certain wacko named "Lord Monckton", so...

Post a reply to this message

On 11/7/2012 2:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>
> Jim
>
Providing proof of citizenship *is* a goosestep priority. In many 
countries you are **required** to have an ID, and to have it up to date, 
and you don't necessarily have to pay for it either. In the US, there 
are like two dozen different ways you could prove you are legal to 
vote/a citizen, but the new voting laws they where trying to shove 
through nearly every place, where targeted at requiring:

1. Ones that cost money, since the government doesn't give them out free.
2. Ones that are hard to get.
3. Ones that take time, which many people don't have, to get.
4. Rules on when, and how, you got some of them, like student IDs, where 
you had to either a) be in the same state as you parent, b) have been 
there at least a year, etc. for the ID to count, even if you had one.

All of it was designed to target people that worked, didn't have the 
time to jump the hoops, didn't have the money to do so, or who *tended* 
to be liberal, like college students who didn't just attend the same 
place their parents did, but moved to other states, to get what they saw 
as a better education. It was all, 100%, directed at undermining certain 
voters. And that wasn't even the most blatant BS. Second to the top: 
Changing how votes where counted, or states where redistricted, often in 
completely opposite ways. For example, winner takes all in a state that 
tended to have a lot of liberal districts, but where the Republicans 
where all concentrated in a smaller number of areas, then setting it up 
as, "Each district vote counts towards its candidate", where there where 
lots of conservative areas, but the highest concentration of actual 
"people" was in liberal cities. Top of the list: The real voter fraud 
that took place, where one guy registering voters was actually caught 
throwing out applications for non-Republican voters, but turning in all 
the ones that where registering Republican.

Bets on the same people that came up with this shit having a complete 
epileptic fit, if someone told them, "You have to show you are competent 
for this job to take it, not just have a lot of support from people with 
similar mental health problems." (Yeah, I said it...)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:43:25 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The halfwit running against Obama actually said, in one case, that
> "government healthcare wasn't necessary, because they could just go to
> the emergency room."

Which of course was why I used that example. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:03:10 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> But then again, we've got at least one representative who believes that
>> vaccines cause autism, because an autistic kid's mother told her so
>> once.
>>
> Heh, now. This BS wouldn't have lived as long it did, or maybe even have
> happened, without the help of a certain wacko named "Lord Monckton",
> so...

Yeah, but the peeps in my "home" district (where I've not lived in 18 
years now) seem to keep wanting to reelect Bachmann.  I've no idea why.  
Maybe it's so the comedians have *some* fodder to go after.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> There is, in fact, a psychological phenomenon behind all this. I wrote an
> article about that very subject here:
>
> http://grindedgear.blogspot.fi/2012/10/people-are-really-bad-at-grasping.html

Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

Post a reply to this message

>> I guess they find it incredibly hard to find anyone to work for them
>> then?
>>
> To keep people yes, to find people to hire, no.

So people do often find something better once they realise the situation 
with this employer? My guess would be then the employer takes advantage 
of new employees who don't have experience with the pay structure. It's 
one of those mistakes we all make once and then never again.

My previous employer did something mildly comparable with our pensions. 
The workforce was mostly young graduates with little experience that 
didn't really realise the implications of what they were agreeing too. 
There were a handful of more experienced people who started to kick up a 
fuss (particularly my manager that had been through exactly the same 
with a previous employer) but their voices were drowned out.

> We are dealing with people that can't do math without a calculator.
> Expecting them to actually comprehend why taking a "better" position is
> actually leaving them in worse financial shape is... probably expecting
> a but much...

You don't need to be a math genius or know how to use a calculator to 
ask "how much will you pay into my bank account each week/month if I 
take this 'better' position?". If they can't manage asking something 
like that with their job then how do they manage with dealing with 
utility companies etc.?

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-07 15:56, Stephen a écrit :
>
> I think that there are two reasons (at least).
>
> 1/    No one wants to stop existing when they die so the believe in a
> religion that promises life after death.

I think your rule #1 is the logical conclusion of a more basic rule. 
Life in a community forces people to go against their natural instinct 
of self-preservation.  To achieve that, the community has to enact a 
"Don't be a dick!" rule.  For some, you need an "or else" clause.  So 
it's either "Don't be a dick, or else you'll suffer for eternity", or 
"Don't be a dick, and you'll be rewarded in the after life".

>
> 2/    A lot of people find it hard to "think outside of the box" and
> believe what they are brought up with as a matter of course.

That's exactly why scientists believe science to be the truth, too.  Not 
everyone realises that most of the scientific laws are only "best 
guesses, so far", and the argument between science and religion becomes 
akin to "my team/your team" sports argument and the way to win, is to 
stack the school board with more fans of MyTeam, not realising that they 
are actually breaking the "Don't be a dick!" rule.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-07 23:19, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> where one guy registering voters was actually caught
> throwing out applications for non-Republican voters, but turning in all
> the ones that where registering Republican.
>

I never understood why Americans, who are usually adamant about their 
right to privacy, don't blink an eye when forced to state their 
political preference when registering to vote.

Yes, I know, it's because it allows them to vote in the primaries, but 
I've never understood why the primaries were run using public funds, in 
the first place.  Political parties are private coroporations.  Let them 
pay for their nomination processes!  No one would tolerate the state 
paying for Coca-Cola or Citibank's executive board meeting where they 
decide who's going to be the new CEO.  It shouldn't be any different for 
the Democratic or Republican parties.

(And don't get me started on why there's only the same two parties at 
all levels of government!)
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> That's exactly why scientists believe science to be the truth, too.

Like who? All scientists I have seen don't have any problem in saying
that science is the best we know so far. We are getting closer and closer
to understanding how the universe works, but we will probably never get
completely there.

However, it *is* justified to say that science is by far the *best* method
for discerning the truth and what's real and what isn't. All alternatives
fail miserably.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-08 09:33, Warp a écrit :
> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>> That's exactly why scientists believe science to be the truth, too.
>
> Like who?

Editing error on my part.  "Some" scientists.

> All scientists I have seen don't have any problem in saying
> that science is the best we know so far. We are getting closer and closer
> to understanding how the universe works, but we will probably never get
> completely there.
>

I've come across people who should have known better.  YMMV.

> However, it *is* justified to say that science is by far the *best* method
> for discerning the truth and what's real and what isn't. All alternatives
> fail miserably.
>

Agreed.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 11/8/2012 1:33 AM, scott wrote:
> You don't need to be a math genius or know how to use a calculator to
> ask "how much will you pay into my bank account each week/month if I
> take this 'better' position?". If they can't manage asking something
> like that with their job then how do they manage with dealing with
> utility companies etc.?
>
Uh... You would be rather surprised.. lol

But, seriously, most people are going to see the $, not look at how many 
hours they actually are likely to get. Those can vary, they depend on 
seniority, and its not always clear how screwed you just made yourself, 
unless you are really paying attention.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/8/2012 5:30 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-11-07 23:19, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
>> where one guy registering voters was actually caught
>> throwing out applications for non-Republican voters, but turning in all
>> the ones that where registering Republican.
>>
>
> I never understood why Americans, who are usually adamant about their
> right to privacy, don't blink an eye when forced to state their
> political preference when registering to vote.
>
> Yes, I know, it's because it allows them to vote in the primaries, but
> I've never understood why the primaries were run using public funds, in
> the first place.  Political parties are private coroporations.  Let them
> pay for their nomination processes!  No one would tolerate the state
> paying for Coca-Cola or Citibank's executive board meeting where they
> decide who's going to be the new CEO.  It shouldn't be any different for
> the Democratic or Republican parties.
>
> (And don't get me started on why there's only the same two parties at
> all levels of government!)
Primaries don't just determine the who is running for the party, they 
sometimes include other things, and involve, also, narrowing the number 
of people running for other positions (like from 20 candidates, to like 
5-6). But, yeah, one would think.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/8/2012 10:51 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-11-08 09:33, Warp a écrit :
>> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>>> That's exactly why scientists believe science to be the truth, too.
>>
>> Like who?
>
> Editing error on my part.  "Some" scientists.
>
Hyperbole, in opposition to someone presenting an "alternative", which 
is rank bullshit.

Or, as emphasis about how other "suggestions" have all failed.

Or, babbling about things they actually have no bloody clue about, but 
think they know something about, because they have a degree in some 
entirely different field (more commonly called "psuedoscientists", when 
they apply this logic). This last case is a bit like someone claiming 
they are an expert in nuclear physics, based on their extensive practice 
with the Culinary Institute of America, making bombes.

Sadly, this happens a bit to often, in some fields, especially physics, 
engineering, and computer science.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/8/2012 12:23 AM, scott wrote:
>> There is, in fact, a psychological phenomenon behind all this. I wrote an
>> article about that very subject here:
>>
>> http://grindedgear.blogspot.fi/2012/10/people-are-really-bad-at-grasping.html
>>
>
> Example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
This isn't just about "probabilities" in this case though, its more like 
"Crank thinking". I.e., if it scares me, then if something seems to 
prove that its true, then its true, but if something indicates its not 
true, its actually conspiracy to hide that it is true."

Post a reply to this message

> Uh... You would be rather surprised.. lol
>
> But, seriously, most people are going to see the $, not look at how many
> hours they actually are likely to get. Those can vary, they depend on
> seniority, and its not always clear how screwed you just made yourself,
> unless you are really paying attention.

In pretty much every step of life people are out to take advantage of 
you if you can't do basic maths or don't pay attention (employers, 
banks, shops, car salesmen, etc.). I don't think it's unique to dodgy 
employers trying to screw over their staff.

A good example is getting a home-loan here in the UK. Most banks will 
offer a number of different products with different combinations of 
interest rates and initial fees. If you can't do the calculation to 
figure out which is the cheapest then you're likely going to be paying 
more than someone who can, especially as the bank is obviously going to 
promote the one that makes them the most money.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> This isn't just about "probabilities" in this case though, its more like 
> "Crank thinking". I.e., if it scares me, then if something seems to 
> prove that its true, then its true, but if something indicates its not 
> true, its actually conspiracy to hide that it is true."

There's indeed an enormous amount of bias among people who believe in
conspiracy theories and such.

For example, no amount of research will convince them, no matter who makes
the research. There are no "unbiased independent parties". They are all in
the conspiracy (somehow.)

And then if there's a research that seemingly supports the conspiracy, it
will immediately be credible and much quoted. It doesn't matter if it has
been rejected by all credible science publications because of not passing
even the most basic of peer reviewing. The publications are rejecting the
research because they are in the conspiracy! (Naturally it cannot be because
the research is bogus. That's just impossible!)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message