are today's teenagers worse than previous generations

[russtafa]

i personally think they fucking brats

[Dino Velvet]

i personally think they fucking brats

Won't get an argument from me. I especially despise the even younger spoiled little brats that race around the Ralph's in their kiddie shopping carts as their cunt single mothers pay no mind and blab on the cell phone. It's obvious there is no father at home or anywhere to lay the law down.

[russtafa]

yeah mate i wont be singing god bless the child .and teenage girls that say the word like seven or eight times in a sentence when i am i a shopping queue or acne faced boys playing gangster and telling every one how tough they are

[NaughtyJane]

In the states only half or so finish High School... of them only a 1/3 or so can do math or read beyond the 8th grade level. Manners and general athleticism are generally deplorable....

Then again in my teens I was no cupcake either. But very athletic, i finished school made my way past an advanced degree eventually... and feared adults enough to be fairly respectful.

[russtafa]

In the states only half or so finish High School... of them only a 1/3 or so can do math or read beyond the 8th grade level. Manners and general athleticism are generally deplorable....

Then again in my teens I was no cupcake either. But very athletic, i finished school made my way past an advanced degree eventually... and feared adults enough to be fairly respectful.yeah but does this seem like the 21st century

[Nicole Dupre]

Everyone intimidates you.

[robertlouis]

Every generation asks the same question, it's recorded all the way back to ancient Athens, and every generations thinks that the next set of kids are hopeless. Well, we've survived so far.

[Prospero]

I espcially hate the really small ones with mops of hair and clothes that don't fit right and the way they toddle around and fall over and can't speak properly.

Bye Bye Birdie - What's the Matter With Kids Today - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wCXr_6wgns)

[robertlouis]

I espcially hate the really small ones with mops of hair and clothes that don't fit right and the way they toddle around and fall over and can't speak properly.


Apart from the hair, isn't that how you'd describe OAPs? :wiggle:

[Prospero]

yep - hate old people too and middle aged ones an the twenty and thirtysomethings with their families and sports and too much ambition. They're all terrible really.

[robertlouis]

yep - hate old people too and middle aged ones an the twenty and thirtysomethings with their families and sports and too much ambition. They're all terrible really.

Just checking. I think you've covered all the ages. So you're not human? :geek:

[Prospero]

Nope - I'm an arniebot

[Prospero]

Those kids - this morning out exercising in the park i had a football thrown at my head by one toddler and later another ran into on his scooter me as i was running. Tiny scum.

[russtafa]

Those kids - this morning out exercising in the park i had a football thrown at my head by one toddler and later another ran into on his scooter me as i was running. Tiny scum.
tiny tot mafia have you marked:whistle:

[Prospero]

The trouble is these tots grow into teenagers and then young adults and then middle aged folk and then geriatric hoodlums.

[russtafa]

then they come at you with walking sticks

[Prospero]

or hurl their dentures

[Ben]

[[are today's teenagers worse than previous generation]]

I doubt it....
And the 50s classic Rebel without a Cause is still relevant today. It's all about teenage alienation and isolation (albeit James Dean was in his early 20s when he played the part -- ha ha!) and, too, sexual confusion. It's rough for members of the LGBT community. Especially... I mean, especially when they're teenagers.
It was rough for me. Keeping my own sexual orientation a secret in high school.

Rebel Without a Cause Knife Scene - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdrmDwvIjE0)

Rebel Without a Cause - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKKCIeA0DM)

[Prospero]

Re Ben's post and his last words... this song....

Thea Hopkins - Jesus Is On The Wire - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkglB_GnPhU)

[russtafa]

[[are today's teenagers worse than previous generation]]

I doubt it....
And the 50s classic Rebel without a Cause is still relevant today. It's all about teenage alienation and isolation (albeit James Dean was in his early 20s when he played the part -- ha ha!) and, too, sexual confusion. It's rough for members of the LGBT community. Especially... I mean, especially when they're teenagers.
It was rough for me. Keeping my own sexual orientation a secret in high school.

Rebel Without a Cause Knife Scene - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdrmDwvIjE0)

Rebel Without a Cause - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKKCIeA0DM)

but they didn't granny bash and mug old people

[russtafa]

today's teenagers tried to set fire to London so that doesn't say much for them no previous generation has tried to attack their own city

[robertlouis]

Re Ben's post and his last words... this song....

Thea Hopkins - Jesus Is On The Wire - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkglB_GnPhU)

Greta rendition of a fantastic song. Thanks Prospero. Every poster on HA should listen to it.

In similar vein I would recommend most of Janis Ian's oeuvre as well as the lesser known but wonderfully wry and bluesy Mary Gaulthier.

[robertlouis]

today's teenagers tried to set fire to London so that doesn't say much for them no previous generation has tried to attack their own city

Notting Hill 1958? Paris 1968? Detroit 1967? Watts.....

It's been going on for generations. The 60s rioters are now the parents or grandparents of those who are now out on the streets, as they sit indoors and tut into their cocoa lol.

[russtafa]

Notting Hill 1958? Paris 1968? Detroit 1967? Watts.....

It's been going on for generations. The 60s rioters are now the parents or grandparents of those who are now out on the streets, as they sit indoors and tut into their cocoa lol.
ok Robert and this granny bashing i cant say my generation went in for that particular craze or did you used to do that to?

[Quiet Reflections]

They are not worse you just hear about more stuff because of how available information is these days. Im sure if there were 500 channels and the internet in the 50's,60's and 70's we would be horrified by the things that went on that never made it to the few news outlets that were available.

[russtafa]

They are not worse you just hear about more stuff because of how available information is these days. Im sure if there were 500 channels and the internet in the 50's,60's and 70's we would be horrified by the things that went on that never made it to the few news outlets that were available.Bull dust if there were youth bashing and robbing old people years ago it would have been published in the media because it would have been a rare event

[Quiet Reflections]

Bull dust if there were youth bashing and robbing old people years ago it would have been published in the media because it would have been a rare event
In the American south or midwest 40,50,60 years ago it never would have made it past the local news level. No way La,New York, and Chicago would ever pick up those stories. People have been committing the same crimes for a long time and even now with technology we hear only a fraction of it. There are tons of old people that have been robbed and killed that we have never heard of. It's silly to think that preying on the weak is a new idea. We would be crazy to give the kids of today the credit of coming up with what nature has been doing for millions of years.

[Prospero]

In the Middle ages and right up to the 19th century lawlessness on the streets of the big cities was incredible. Until the advent of street lighting people scarcely ventured out after dark because of the menace of serious violence - murder, robbery, rape etc. There were whole areas of the great cities of the West that were no go areas. The rule of the mob was far greater than today. And in the US lynch mobs and gun law were pretty common until the early years of this century.
Mind you we did ship some of our worst criminal elements to Australia where I believe Mr Russtafa was born and raised. (Cheap shot but i couldn't resist).

[russtafa]

:dancing:you left wingers i suggest have worsened this situation by encouraging these youths not to respect authority and it has been spiralling down hill ever since the sixties because we all know that the left wants to ruin their own countries because they are a pack of traitors and should be shot for treason and i would happily pull the trigger to save our great nation from this leftist scum lol

[Prospero]

What a droll chap you are russtafa lol.... Safe in your citadel of ignorance. Bullets for the left? Delivered perhaps by chaps like you... maybe in nice black uniforms and, to save on bullets, why not use gas. Far more effective. LOL

[russtafa]

What a droll chap you are russtafa lol.... Safe in your citadel of ignorance. Bullets for the left? Delivered perhaps by chaps like you... maybe in nice black uniforms and, to save on bullets, why not use gas. Far more effective. LOLwaste of gas:whistle:

[Stavros]

Janis Ian! Now there's a name I had forgotten. This is a sweetly sung song of bitterness, about not being beautiful or popular; the anguish and frustration of being a teenager can, of course, lead to violence, but mostly its self-destruction. And they do grow out of it; I did -just.

Janis Ian - At Seventeen (Original Stereo) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MrKtX-c3XU&feature=related)

[russtafa]

the left wing teachers teach these youths to disrespect authority especially the police and that's why we have these problems today its stems from the sixties hippies

[Stavros]

A snap portrait of two of my teachers, circa 1965:

1) the maths teacher: he enters the classroom, leans against the front of the desk, lights up a cigarette, and proceeds to tell us why we should support the US in Vietnam: because if Vietnam goes Communist, then so will Thailand, then India -ie, the domino theory. Pornography is funded by the USSR to subvert and undermine the values of western civilisation. And so on, and so on.

2) The history/civics teacher: if he didn't like someone he would pick an argument with them and then punish them: he had the knack of flicking a boy's ear with the tips of his fingers so you could hear the crack -and it did sting -he never did it to me, or indeed any of the boys, except one: the Jew.

We used to walk past the Jews every morning on the way to assembly, they had to line up outside the Hall and were not allowed in because of our Christian service.

Both teachers had been policemen in Southern Rhodesia, retired on their pensions and came back to make more money, play golf and lament the decline of those (allegedly) prosperous economies.

You cannot reach disrespect, but a teacher can lose it, if he or she had it at all. Every generation re-defines what can and cannot be allowed in the classroom; these days violence and verbal abuse should be against the law although one hears stories of it. The social structure of British society has changed; the route from school to work that once began at the age of 15 and meant a guaranteed apprenticeship has changed; and yet the aspirations remain the same for all young people: to get laid. And a lot of youth frustration is shaped by sexual unfulfillment and inexperience, and the manipulation of older people: notably drugs, which are often a substitute for sex.

And so on; there are some serious issues here Russtafa, it is a pity you seem to sweep everything up into a slogan that fails to capture the core of the problem. Had you been born in 1900 or 1920, what are the odds that you would have died on a foreign battlefield?

[russtafa]

sounds good to me

[Prospero]

Yep - volunteer for the Mujaheddin Russtafa. You KNOW it makes sense.

[russtafa]

i all ways like to tell the old diggers see what you fought for .rag heads in Australia,junkies,thugs,refo's,greedy politicians that would sell the country out in a heart beat .poor old buggers all ways get a sour look on their faces.and young wankers that want to rob them=god bless the socialists lol

[Prospero]

ragheads... what a model of tolerance you are
Actually your old comrades and those who didn't come back fought against the sort of intolerance you now embrace.

[Nicole Dupre]

Ea' now! Fro anaffa shwrimp on th' bawbee, moitee! Russtafa's gawt 'is bwrine in mowshun! Aleht th' pressis! G'day, moit!

You fuckin' uptight homo. *SMFH

[russtafa]

ragheads... what a model of tolerance you are
Actually your old comrades and those who didn't come back fought against the sort of intolerance you now embrace.seriously doubt it

[trish]

Doubt it not.

[russtafa]

yes i do if they had known what they were fighting for i think it would have been down tools and walk off the job and hang the government

[Ben]

i all ways like to tell the old diggers see what you fought for .rag heads in Australia,junkies,thugs,refo's,greedy politicians that would sell the country out in a heart beat .poor old buggers all ways get a sour look on their faces.and young wankers that want to rob them=god bless the socialists lol

You may agree with the English writer Alan Moore. The more apt description is: libertarianism. Which is: "... a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary."
I think everyone needs to control their own labor, their own community.... People should be in control of their own lives. Without, as Moore says, being bossed about.
They've done extensive studies. Which find that people who don't control their own labor are increasing stressed. Which leads to melancholy or sadness.
Quoting from a libertarian site: "Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of a social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting."
Adam Smith articulated that the goal of free markets, that is free market capitalism, is to create equality -- or liberty. He said that under conditions of perfect liberty (meaning, again, free markets) you get perfect equality. Meaning, in essence, people control their own lives. That's the core.

Alan Moore on Anarchism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKfF-nxjDi0)

[russtafa]

You may agree with the English writer Alan Moore. The more apt description is: libertarianism. Which is: "... a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary."
I think everyone needs to control their own labor, their own community.... People should be in control of their own lives. Without, as Moore says, being bossed about.
They've done extensive studies. Which find that people who don't control their own labor are increasing stressed. Which leads to melancholy or sadness.
Quoting from a libertarian site: "Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of a social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting."
Adam Smith articulated that the goal of free markets, that is free market capitalism, is to create equality -- or liberty. He said that under conditions of perfect liberty (meaning, again, free markets) you get perfect equality. Meaning, in essence, people control their own lives. That's the core.

Alan Moore on Anarchism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKfF-nxjDi0)i can see that ever working=NOT

[Ben]

i can see that ever working=NOT

I think it depends on whether or not people want it. (I mean, it took awhile for women in America to gain the right to vote. But women wanted it, fought for it and gained the right to vote.)
I mean, people are fed up in America with the inordinate power of large corporations. Sick of the Middle class -- and working class -- getting screwed. It's a fairness and, too, a deep morality issue. And that's the essence of conservatism: morality.
Morality also encompasses a slew of issues like, well, I think, dumping toxic waste into the air, water and soil. Which is a deep moral issue. I think caring about future generations is a moral issue. Not just, well, abortion or gay marriage. Denying two women or two men the right to marry seems absurd to me.... Anyway, enough ranting -- ha ha ha! :)

[Stavros]

Ben I think you need to qualify your 'essence of conservatism' as 'morality'. American conservatism tends to believe that the decisions individuals make are the essence of freedom. The Constitutional experiment, taking a cue from John Locke argues that yes, the citizen surrenders some of his or her liberty to the state in return for which the state protects life and property; ever since 1776 there has been -and will always be- a debate on the issues that push and pull citizens and the state; libertarians demand the maximum amount of individual liberty and the minimum amount of state intervention in their lives, so that strictly speaking, shouldn't the moral judgement of marriage by a libertarian allow any two -or indeed, any number of- people to marry as long as it is consensual?

Are moral values absolute, or relative?

[Ben]

Ben I think you need to qualify your 'essence of conservatism' as 'morality'. American conservatism tends to believe that the decisions individuals make are the essence of freedom. The Constitutional experiment, taking a cue from John Locke argues that yes, the citizen surrenders some of his or her liberty to the state in return for which the state protects life and property; ever since 1776 there has been -and will always be- a debate on the issues that push and pull citizens and the state; libertarians demand the maximum amount of individual liberty and the minimum amount of state intervention in their lives, so that strictly speaking, shouldn't the moral judgement of marriage by a libertarian allow any two -or indeed, any number of- people to marry as long as it is consensual?

Are moral values absolute, or relative?

Well, relative. As it depends what one means by freedom?
I mean, over a century ago conservatives believed that people should be free from concentrated corporate power. (And, too, conservatism should reflect 18th. century values. I mean, Adam Smith was a conservative. I'm talking about the real Adam Smith. And not the one you hear about. To understand Adam Smith you've got to read him. David Hume was also a real conservative. At its core was democracy. And, of course, conservatism sprang from classical liberalism. So, it's deeply rooted in liberal traditions.)
So, the term "conservative" has been rendered meaningless. What we call conservatives today are merely corporatists. Believing in a corporate-state power structure.
They believe a small section of the populace should control a country, as it were. Because people are inherently evil. And if they -- the power elite -- handed/gave power over to the people, well, they'd screw the whole thing up. It's rational, rational self interest.
Also a small section of the population running things brings about stability. So-called conservatives [today!] oppose democratic values.
And libertarians -- and I'm not sure they realize this -- are actually pushing for corporate tyranny. In the absence of a State, well, corporate power would become completely dominant. The population would have no control over them. People have some say and control over governments.
The whole marriage thing is a bit tricky. I guess if three people -- like, say, Hugh Hefner and his gal pals -- wanted to get married, well, it's their choice.

[russtafa]

this just like communism or most forms of government control .these forms of government try to deny basic human driven needs that some people will always try to work hard and succeed ,while others will want the state to look after all their needs and just lie back and do nothing .you will always have an upper class and a lower class ,that's just human nature and that's where the church comes in as a tool of the rich

[trish]

No. It's just like capitalism or most forms of corporate control that try to manipulate human foibles with lies and promises (think of all the incessant marketing we're exposed to each and every day). There will always be scam artists and bullies who steal for themselves the fruits of other people's hard labor. But if ordinary people ban together, form governments that protect the commons and the common interest the gap between those who produce goods with their bare hands and those who live off the labor of others needn't be so large.

[Stavros]

And, of course, conservatism sprang from classical liberalism.

Hmmm...sorry Ben, I think you are wrong. Conservatism pre-dates classical liberalism and in some of its manfestations is oposed to it. Hobbes was a Conservative, Locke a liberal, to take two obvious examples.

Part of this problem may be due to the different use of language -in the UK a liberal is considered centre-left, a conservative centre-right and beyond. Historically, the Whigs viewed history as progress and for that reason became associated with the economic changes that were propelled by the ideas of the enlightenment and the industrial revolution which they saw as a delightful marriage between rationality and capitalism -they became the Liberal Party in the years that followed the Reform Act of 1832. Conservatives tended to fear change in principle, and in particular changes that would change the structure of society -hence the conservatives being more closely associated with the pillars of the state: the Monarchy, the Church, Government, and the Military. It was therefore easier for a conservative to take a moderately anti-capitalist position than the Liberals because the patrician conservative looks after his servants and labourers: these historical nuances meant that by the end of the 19thc, Liberals tended to be forward looking and willing to represent common labourers where the conservatives tried to appeal to all as a nationalist party. It was socialism and the growth of the Labour party that undermined the Whig-Tory duality: Liberals won the elections in the early years of the 20thc under Lloyd-George, but by the early 20s were decimated and have been a minority party since then. Liberals nowadays support the welfare state, but in some respects so too does the conservative party, because even Margaret Thatcher knew that privatising the national health service would be political suicide. Some argue that Thatcher took the Conservatives so far to the right that they lost their 'traditional' Conservive identity, this is where the concept of 'caring conservatism' or 'compassionate capitalism' came from, most of which is akin to giving your slaves an extra cup of sugar on Sunday.

So, it is not the case that conservatives are solely corporatists: in the UK some are libertarians and some are 'one nation tories' who are statists rather than corporatists: they believe in a strong state, and argue that business can be left to do business but that the state needs to be there as guarantor and protector. This is why I keep saying that on both sides of the Atlantic, labels aside, it is the issue of the State that is dividing political opinion; most capitalist businesses in the States are not corporatist anyway. One final point -Kant believed morals are absolute, but thats another thread...

[Ben]

this just like communism or most forms of government control .these forms of government try to deny basic human driven needs that some people will always try to work hard and succeed ,while others will want the state to look after all their needs and just lie back and do nothing .you will always have an upper class and a lower class ,that's just human nature and that's where the church comes in as a tool of the rich

Actually, this is the opposite of Russian communism or, say, American capitalism.
Russian communism had nothing to do with actual communism &/or socialism.
The first thing that Lenin and Trotsky did when they took over was destroy every socialist institution that had developed. Namely: Workers councils. And they turned the population into what was called: a labor army. And kowtowing to the rule of the maximal leader. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM. Socialism means workers' control over production. This was the biggest blow against actual socialism.
I wouldn't say it's human nature. I mean, the nature of being human allows for all sorts of behaviors. Under certain circumstances any one of us could either be a monster or a saint.
You find that if people control their own labor, well, all they do is work. You find this with University researchers. Who work 80 hours a week. Also, well, take carpenters. If carpenters have full control over their labor they work all the time.
During the 50s, 60s and early 70s there was a burgeoning Middle Class in America. Because of industrial capitalism, as it were. Industrial capitalism, as I've mentioned before, isn't overly concerned with inflation.
What happened circa 1975 is that America -- and other Industrialized nations -- went from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism. Now financial capitalism is concerned about inflation. Which is economic growth and wage growth. So, interest rates spiked to put a damper on wage growth. So, for more than 30 years we've seen financial capitalism slowly destroy the once prominent Middle Class.
What kind of society do we want to live in? Well, if we live in a so-called democratic society, well, it's up to the people to decide.

[russtafa]

Ben you will always get people that don't want to work and complain when the state does not provide for them and people that want to control or exploit their fellow workers. a limited social welfare system is great but where do you draw the line,i.e state housing for every one ,free education for every one,free health care for every one,free transport for every one,asylum seekers or refugees are entitled to the same rights and care as the citizens of that country,every one is entitled to the dole, because the money can only stretch so far

[Ben]

Ben you will always get people that don't want to work and complain when the state does not provide for them and people that want to control or exploit their fellow workers. a limited social welfare system is great but where do you draw the line,i.e state housing for every one ,free education for every one,free health care for every one,free transport for every one,asylum seekers or refugees are entitled to the same rights and care as the citizens of that country,every one is entitled to the dole, because the money can only stretch so far


To me, in America, guest workers and the offshoring &/or outsourcing of jobs are profound problems. We offshore not only the jobs but the economy and the tax base. And this is done, of course, by politicians to serve giant corporate interests. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And I think the people of every country should control their own immigration policy. So, public policy should be directed by the people. (Politicians, in other words, should serve the public will. Again, people don't want jobs offshored. Again, people should control their own immigration policy. To serve their own interests. People, in a democracy, should have their voices heard and served, as it were -- :))
Again, I'm for people controlling their own country, their own communities, their own work. Now for people who just don't want to work. Um, what do we do? Well, we can't have them starve to death. I'm not for letting people starve to death. I don't think anyone is. (Politicians are not putting in place policies that reflect the will of the people. Politics doesn't work this way. Because, in part, it's corrupt and seeks above all else its own power.)
And with respect to work and working. I mean, everyone likes to do a specific thing. Everyone enjoys something. And, as I mentioned before, if a carpenter has complete control over his own labor, well, he -- or she -- will work pretty much all the time. (Could you design a society like this? Where everyone controls their own lives, their own labor? Well, why not? Would it work? That's a separate question. It may not work. We don't know.
And another problem is: say people just don't want to participate in a full and meaningful democratic society where people control their own labor. Well, that's another problem. As a society, well, we will always have problems. Again, we'll always have a various assortment of problems. But it's how you address those various problems that counts.
Those problems should be tackled, as it were, with intelligence, sympathy, understanding and with democratic structures. I mean, I have faith in people. Most people are good, decent and moral.
And with respect to, say, drug addiction, well, I think we focus on prevention, treatment and education. I mean, we should try and help people who suffer from serious drug addiction. I mean, a lot of housewives in the United States pop pills everyday. They are by definition drug addicts. We shouldn't demean them. And call them names. But try and help them. I believe in the, well, human spirit, as it were. I've a great deal of empathy for people. Adam Smith referred to empathy as: a core attribute of being a human being.
In our society we don't pay people according to how hard they work. I mean, coal miners work extremely hard. And it's very difficult work. But they make a helluva lot less than the likes of Angelina Jolie and Julia Roberts.
And speaking of people that cheat the system. Bono, of the Irish band U2, moved the band's business interests to Holland to cut down on his and the band's tax rates. I think we should be upset at the rich and powerful for not paying their fair share in taxes, for dodging taxes, for designing/controlling public policy to serve their own interests and screwing over hard working men and women. Hard working men and women are getting shafted. They're getting screwed by, as George Carlin said, these rich cocksuckers.
So, the emphasis should be on fairness. For rewarding hard work. Miners work hard. Nurses work hard. Construction workers work hard. We should reward that.
But in our societies we seem to PUNISH THE GOOD and REWARD THE BAD.... Sad, eh?

[russtafa]

To me, in America, guest workers and the offshoring &/or outsourcing of jobs are profound problems. We offshore not only the jobs but the economy and the tax base. And this is done, of course, by politicians to serve giant corporate interests. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And I think the people of every country should control their own immigration policy. So, public policy should be directed by the people. (Politicians, in other words, should serve the public will. Again, people don't want jobs offshored. Again, people should control their own immigration policy. To serve their own interests. People, in a democracy, should have their voices heard and served, as it were -- :))
Again, I'm for people controlling their own country, their own communities, their own work. Now for people who just don't want to work. Um, what do we do? Well, we can't have them starve to death. I'm not for letting people starve to death. I don't think anyone is. (Politicians are not putting in place policies that reflect the will of the people. Politics doesn't work this way. Because, in part, it's corrupt and seeks above all else its own power.)
And with respect to work and working. I mean, everyone likes to do a specific thing. Everyone enjoys something. And, as I mentioned before, if a carpenter has complete control over his own labor, well, he -- or she -- will work pretty much all the time. (Could you design a society like this? Where everyone controls their own lives, their own labor? Well, why not? Would it work? That's a separate question. It may not work. We don't know.
And another problem is: say people just don't want to participate in a full and meaningful democratic society where people control their own labor. Well, that's another problem. As a society, well, we will always have problems. Again, we'll always have a various assortment of problems. But it's how you address those various problems that counts.
Those problems should be tackled, as it were, with intelligence, sympathy, understanding and with democratic structures. I mean, I have faith in people. Most people are good, decent and moral.
And with respect to, say, drug addiction, well, I think we focus on prevention, treatment and education. I mean, we should try and help people who suffer from serious drug addiction. I mean, a lot of housewives in the United States pop pills everyday. They are by definition drug addicts. We shouldn't demean them. And call them names. But try and help them. I believe in the, well, human spirit, as it were. I've a great deal of empathy for people. Adam Smith referred to empathy as: a core attribute of being a human being.
In our society we don't pay people according to how hard they work. I mean, coal miners work extremely hard. And it's very difficult work. But they make a helluva lot less than the likes of Angelina Jolie and Julia Roberts.
And speaking of people that cheat the system. Bono, of the Irish band U2, moved the band's business interests to Holland to cut down on his and the band's tax rates. I think we should be upset at the rich and powerful for not paying their fair share in taxes, for dodging taxes, for designing/controlling public policy to serve their own interests and screwing over hard working men and women. Hard working men and women are getting shafted. They're getting screwed by, as George Carlin said, these rich cocksuckers.
So, the emphasis should be on fairness. For rewarding hard work. Miners work hard. Nurses work hard. Construction workers work hard. We should reward that.
But in our societies we seem to PUNISH THE GOOD and REWARD THE BAD.... Sad, eh?Ben on most points i agree with you but the money only go's so far.If Australia didn't have it's rich natural resources we would be in real trouble.the greed of some of these company directors is staggering .i doubt if they could spend what they receive in a life time

[Ben]

Ben on most points i agree with you but the money only go's so far.If Australia didn't have it's rich natural resources we would be in real trouble.the greed of some of these company directors is staggering .i doubt if they could spend what they receive in a life time

I think that's what we're all taught in our culture. Just simple greed. Ya know, we've been inundated from childhood, from TV, from school that we're the only one's that matter. You should maximize your own personal consumption. Again, simple greed.
Ya know, no one else matters. The old woman down the street doesn't matter. I think it's a profound sickness, as it were. So, with greed comes staggering wealth inequality. Pollution. (For pollution check out Los Angeles -- :)) And a lot of other problems.
This isn't to say that people shouldn't look after their own interests. It's merely a critique of excessive greed... :)

Pollution Cruise - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kZQyd6r0PM)

[russtafa]

Ben it does not matter if the government is left or right they all open for graft from big corporations and it's happening here, they are importing cheap unskilled labour and our government is hand and with the mining companies

[hippifried]

Pick a year:

2011 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1911 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1811 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1711 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1611 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1511 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1411 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1311 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1211 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1111 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1011 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0911 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0811 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0711 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0611 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0511 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0411 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0311 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0211 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0111 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0011 - "Kids these days are just horrible!" (Think that includes Jesus?)

...& on & on & on back to the primordial ooze...

[trish]

"Why can't they be like we were,
perfect in every way?
What's the matter with kids today?"
-Bye-bye birdie

[russtafa]

Pick a year:

2011 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1911 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1811 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1711 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1611 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1511 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1411 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1311 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1211 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1111 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

1011 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0911 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0811 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0711 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0611 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0511 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0411 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0311 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0211 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0111 - "Kids these days are just horrible!"

0011 - "Kids these days are just horrible!" (Think that includes Jesus?)

...& on & on & on back to the primordial ooze...

smoke some more dope and put on your hippie cd's and it will make it all better lol

[russtafa]

"Why can't they be like we were,
perfect in every way?
What's the matter with kids today?"
-Bye-bye birdieyeah why do kids want to burn down london and attack the police =must be a social problem yarda yarda yarda.typical left wing response.think out side the box woman,don't think like a typical left wing social worker it doesn't work it has failed since the 60s and will keep failing:smh

[Stavros]

But if it is not a social problem, then what is it? It is society in which people live, and social structures in which we interact -even if it is one person's deranged psychology, the evidence shows that in a crowd people who would normally be law-abiding and peaceful can 'follow the instinct of the herd' -thereby turning a riot into a social phenomenon, rather than say 100 individuals acting on their own -but I don't ever see your posts responding to evidence.

[russtafa]

But if it is not a social problem, then what is it? It is society in which people live, and social structures in which we interact -even if it is one person's deranged psychology, the evidence shows that in a crowd people who would normally be law-abiding and peaceful can 'follow the instinct of the herd' -thereby turning a riot into a social phenomenon, rather than say 100 individuals acting on their own -but I don't ever see your posts responding to evidence.it's a law and order or lack of it problem .when i was a teen we would not have dreamed of fighting with the police and i was not a good boy, but this seems a regular occurrence now so it's law and order the lack of respect because their is no force in police force.this should make every socialist social worker cry with tears of a bleeding heart:(

[Faldur]

But if it is not a social problem, then what is it? It is society in which people live, and social structures in which we interact -even if it is one person's deranged psychology, the evidence shows that in a crowd people who would normally be law-abiding and peaceful can 'follow the instinct of the herd' -thereby turning a riot into a social phenomenon, rather than say 100 individuals acting on their own -but I don't ever see your posts responding to evidence.

Funny never saw any violence break out at Tea Party events.. maybe racists are peaceful people

[Prospero]

Funny never saw any violence break out at Tea Party events.. maybe racists are peaceful people

remarkable. Faldur admits that there is racism in the tea party.

Oh you never saw racists being violent. Funny that. The Klan? The Nazis? etc etc etc

[Stavros]

Funny never saw any violence break out at Tea Party events.. maybe racists are peaceful people

Don't be so disingenuous, Herr Faldur, there is a radical difference between a riot and a meeting of Tea Party enthusiasts..but I wonder how many of the people who were actually at THE tea party -you know, the one in Boston on the 16th December 1773- joined in the fun as they happened to be passing by on the quayside...presumably, and because no 'revolution' had actually begun at this time, Russtafa would condemn those American criminals and their lack of respect for the law...

[russtafa]

Funny never saw any violence break out at Tea Party events.. maybe racists are peaceful people

Don't be so disingenuous, Herr Faldur, there is a radical difference between a riot and a meeting of Tea Party enthusiasts..but I wonder how many of the people who were actually at THE tea party -you know, the one in Boston on the 16th December 1773- joined in the fun as they happened to be passing by on the quayside...presumably, and because no 'revolution' had actually begun at this time, Russtafa would condemn those American criminals and their lack of respect for the law...
no but the Canadians shot them when they tried to cross the border lol:)

[arnie666]

Depends what you mean by 'worse'. There has always been shitheads amongst all generations, there has always been broken homes no father about booze ,mum and dad are a waste of space ,you get teenagers who come from a stable two hetrosexual parent household churchgoing optional extra who are little shits and their parents are visably ashamed when the police are going up their stairs to drag the nasty little cunt out of his bed. I would say though ,that thanks to liberal dogma as well as how the economies have changed,certainly in the UK teenagers are actually less secure and more unhappy about their lives. But I wouldn't say the necessarily correlates with more crime.

In my opinion and from talking to several cops who worked in different eras fear of detection hasn't changed in fact it is slightly better these days,but not as great as many would think. In the past, cops knew exactly the scrotes whereabouts and who was who far more. These days there is a reliance on firebrigade policing ,responding to shouts and cctv.'Community policing' is just a sop to 'community groups' often ethnics in deprived communitys.There just isn't the money for it.The science has got better though. Swings and roundabouts.What has changed big time though is fear of the police and fear of punishment by the courts.Basically there is a lack of it . That applies to all generations though not just teens.

[Stavros]

thanks to liberal dogma as well as how the economies have changed,certainly in the UK teenagers are actually less secure and more unhappy about their lives.

The problem with your diagnosis is that half of it is accurate, the other is a slogan -what is this liberal dogma you refer to? The Conservatives have run the government in this country for most of the past 40 years, and I don't recall anyone describing Margaret Thatcher as a liberal.

The weight of evidence is on a number of factors: for example, the erosion of job security across age groups: while numerically this was inevitable as the UK lost 25% of its industrial capacity under Thatcher, it was extended by the growth of market principles where jobs themselves shifted from being permanent to being temporary, the point being that jobs would rise and fall with market demand; and as markets became more unstable, so did jobs, and this has affected white collar as well as blue collar jobs.

The fabric of society appears to have worn thin, and part of this is due to the extraordinary growth in the availability of narcotics, another legacy of the Thatcher era -up to the 1970s, Heroin was a marginal drug, by the end of the 1980s it was available in towns where there had previously been no drug presence at all worth speaking of. Only in the last 5 years has there been any sign of a decline in Heroin as the 'drug of choice'. The growth of narcotics as a 'lifestyle choice' does not always turn users into criminals in the sense that they become thieves and burglars and so on, but as most narcotics are illegal, a substantial number of people can only access their weekend entertainment by crossing the boundary of the law. Law-breaking has thus become a casual activity of no moral importance.

In addition, it has maintained the violence of war in Afghanistan just as today, every time some pathetic scumlet sniffs a line of coke, a man or a woman or a child or all three have their brains blown out in Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala -just as Heroin users were allies of the Mujahideen and more recently the Taliban, so today coke-sniffers are accessories to murder in Mexico, but you won't see any of these people in court.

Even alcohol consumption, which has always had its problem area, has given urban areas at night a different and more menacing character from what they once had, when, to be honest, they were empty. And it was the Conservative party that relaxed the licensing laws which boosted late-night entertainment outlets. A generation of people are now heading towards serious alcohol-abuse related illness in their 40s where before it might their 60s or even 70s, and it was not Liberal Dogma that created this opportunity for self-destruction, it was the Conservative Party. And, while the newspapers are full of hysterical comments from outraged colonels and Women's Institute regulars, they all of voted for Maggie as if she was the Second Coming.

Britain's prisons now contain more inmates than at any time in recent history. The people who put them there, the Police, are widely viewed -probably by a minority of people, but a larger minority than 40 years ago -as corrupt and incompetent. Although this is not a fair description of the majority of policemen, the scandals that reach back into the 1970s with widespread corruption in London and the West Midlands, eroded the image of the force as a morally uncontaminated component of the state. Moreover, it was again narcotics that played, and continues to play a key role in the nexus that ties coke-sniffers to criminals and crooked cops and their associates in the drug cartels of Mexico and Colombia. It is difficult indeed to maintain respect for the law, when too many of the people who are supposed to be upholding the law are involved in crime -the recent phone-hacking scandal has not only exposed the fact that policemen and women with access to private information on individuals are prepared to sell it to 'Private Detectives' and the Press, but then use their Police powers to prevent the exposure of these facts to the taxpayers who pay their wages and their generous pensions.

Finally in what could be a very tedious list, we have the governing class of MP's and members of the government, who appear to think that a basic salary of £65,000 a year is woefully inadequate and effectively lie and steal from the public purse to satisfy their cravings for household goods, foreign travel or whatever it is they spend it on.
It could be argued that the Labour govt which took power in 1997 was a continuation of the Conservative government elected in 1979, Tony Blair took the Labour Party by the scruff of its neck, and drowned it in a toilet bowl. Having waterboarded his own party to death, he then proceeded to make it a foreign outpost of the Republican Party of the USA, and to adopt torture as a casual instrument of government policy.
In 1974 a Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey promised to tax the rich until their 'pips squeaked', whatever that meant; under Blair, Brown and Mandelson, the Rich were granted the keys to the Kingdom: The City of London as the crucible of fabulous wealth was immune from regulatory oversight-Liberal Dogma?

In today's Government, we have an MP -Conservative- who wanders through a London park reading government documents, and letters from his constitutents which, once read, are thrown into a bin; and we had the Secretary of State for Defence -Conservative- who ran his own -private, unaccountable- foreign policy unit for the financial benefit of his 'best friend' and who thus treated with contempt not only his own party and his own department of government, but the people of the country who trusted him with a sensitive job.

No respect for the Police, No respect for Politicians, No Respect! -Liberal Dogma?

[Prospero]

I admire your perseverence Stavros... but I think your cool logic is wasted here

[russtafa]

I wonder why their is very little crime in Singapore?

[Stavros]

Stop trying to change the subject

[russtafa]

Stop trying to change the subject

not trying to change the subject,i am saying why is their no teenage riots in Singapore or any other trouble related to youth

[Silcc69]

Depends what you mean by 'worse'. There has always been shitheads amongst all generations, there has always been broken homes no father about booze ,mum and dad are a waste of space ,you get teenagers who come from a stable two hetrosexual parent household churchgoing optional extra who are little shits and their parents are visably ashamed when the police are going up their stairs to drag the nasty little cunt out of his bed. I would say though ,that thanks to liberal dogma as well as how the economies have changed,certainly in the UK teenagers are actually less secure and more unhappy about their lives. But I wouldn't say the necessarily correlates with more crime.

In my opinion and from talking to several cops who worked in different eras fear of detection hasn't changed in fact it is slightly better these days,but not as great as many would think. In the past, cops knew exactly the scrotes whereabouts and who was who far more. These days there is a reliance on firebrigade policing ,responding to shouts and cctv.'Community policing' is just a sop to 'community groups' often ethnics in deprived communitys.There just isn't the money for it.The science has got better though. Swings and roundabouts.What has changed big time though is fear of the police and fear of punishment by the courts.Basically there is a lack of it . That applies to all generations though not just teens.

ROFLMBAO man oh man you say sum of the wildest shit.

[Stavros]

Russ the population of Singapore is smaller than the population of London so the number of young people will be smaller again, most of them are either in education or work, although Singapore has not been immune from the recession affecting some of us in 'the west'. Your post was disingenuous because you know an additional factor which forms the answer to your question, and I don't intend to answer it because its not relevant to the UK, much to your disappointment.

[russtafa]

Russ the population of Singapore is smaller than the population of London so the number of young people will be smaller again, most of them are either in education or work, although Singapore has not been immune from the recession affecting some of us in 'the west'. Your post was disingenuous because you know an additional factor which forms the answer to your question, and I don't intend to answer it because its not relevant to the UK, much to your disappointment.
why it seem's very relevant when teens that enter Singapore think twice about offending because of the penalties

[Prospero]

You want to live in a police state, Russtafa?

[russtafa]

Love to .No crime but so expensive