Messages

Huh, interesting.

Thanks for that insight Cain - I knew they were big, but I didn't realize they were that big.

In the spirit of random news stories - here's another that demonstrates the continued failure of private business in the prison system I predicted would blow up last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/09/yarls-wood-immigration-removal-centre-women-children

Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre is holding vulnerable women and children for too long in conditions that are causing them serious distress and are not suitable for those with mental health problems, according to a damning independent report.
...
It describes a "serious deterioration" in the centre's healthcare service. While Yarl's Wood is run by the contractor Serco, from September its health service has been provided by another private firm, G4S, on behalf of NHS England. While detainees had previously complained about the rude attitude of healthcare staff, the report says, during 2014 this reportedly worsened into "a failure to take detainees' complex physical and mental needs seriously". Specific incidents included one woman waiting almost three weeks for blood tests for a medical condition, and a family left without asthma and diabetes medication for a week.

So here's a double whammy of failing detention AND failing private healthcare.

My boss has some strong opinions around G4S. They are, of course, the people who fucked up the olympic security contract. For a while they were blacklisted from public contracts, but it didn't last long - he believes mostly because G4S upper management is largely composed of people with oxbridge/private education ties, which lets them get into central government contracts regardless of their actual suitability for the jobs.

Naturally such a thing would be unthinkable.

No, I don't have the explanation handy - and to be honest I'm now bored of reading the same thing over and over again. You can chalk this one up as a 'victory' if you like because I'm out.

Where you are doing it is evident right in that post. You're screeching about how terrible it was he was drunk at times, ignoring the fact that he was seeking treatment for and fighting his illness from 2005. It takes time to recognize there is a problem. Upon recognizing it, he sought treatment for it. Given that he was still a better politician drunk than most of them sober, in his case, I don't see the problem. You're acting as though this illness were a moral failing which should bar him from office. No. I disagree. You can keep screeching at me about it but it isn't going to change my mind.

Because hey, guess what, not all situations are equal and I'll hold a train driver to higher standards regarding his eyesight than a politician too. Or should David Blunkett have been banned from the office on the basis of his blindness? Should Paul Maynard resign because he has to take special measures to be able to vote due to his cerebral palsy?

As for the coalition vote, that is exactly what I meant. I agree with you; he should have voted against it. However, his reasons for NOT doing so were equally clear; he spoke about it at the time and he didn't just do it because it seemed like the easy option. He was able to form a decent, rational explanation for his actions.

And it wasn't just about being selfish or bettering himself. If he had wanted it, there is little doubt in my mind he could have easily gotten a cabinet position and done very nicely out of the coalition. He didn't. You'll need to find some far stronger arguments regarding his failures as a human being - especially if you're using that, of all time periods, to try and back up the idea his drinking was the issue in play there.

You've yet to give a single example of an actual decision he made that you can point to as a bad thing. You've just spouted a bunch of assumptions about the fact that he was a politician therefore he had to be bad - oh and he was an addict and that makes him a bad human being.

If having addiction problems is enough to damn you as a person then you're setting the bar very high. I would say unreasonably high.

You also seem very eager to trivialize alcoholism into being a character flaw - just a low level of willpower, maybe? I don't know. Do you think people with depression should just cheer up, too?

Yeah, at least Luka'd just kill you and not try to talk to you about chaos majidguqke.

[Well, we paid his salary and expenses. There's also those subsidised bars so technically, yes, we literally all paid for it. He was often obviously drunk in parliament on more than a few occasions. Are we actually saying with a straight face that he will have made all the best arguments and decisions possible while impaired?]

I have learned through bitter experience to hold any and all persons holding political power in equal contempt. Every second you start thinking "they're on our side" or any such things is a second you spend deluded.

Not sure I agree we paid for it for years. I don't think his alcoholism had any real effect on his voting record. It definitely had a major effect on his career and lifespan, which is unfortunate, but there we go.

Well, we paid his salary and expenses. There's also those subsidised bars so technically, yes, we literally all paid for it. He was often obviously drunk in parliament on more than a few occasions. Are we actually saying with a straight face that he will have made all the best arguments and decisions possible while impaired?


I'm moderately sorry for writing off his achievements, but I really am struggling to see that many. For example, the ones in the thread so far :
-Right about iraq (Who fucking wasn't. Even I called that as a bullshit clusterfuck.)
-said stupid things less often than others (Given the company he's competed with, not hard.)
-Abstained from a vote on coalition (that went well)
-Opposed blair raising tuition fees (Went well too)
-Pandered to demographic (Pretty much his job)
-grew lib-dem party (credit due here, but kind of irrelevant since clegg royally fucked it all up. Politically this is probably his most notable and it's one that I fucking raised.)
-had morals and principles (So let's get out the fucking medals.)

Others?

Looking at his track record? Yes, the bolded is exactly what I'm saying.

Other than his alcoholism, there weren't many things I disagreed with him on - and those I did, I can understand his reasons for. I might not agree, but I respected him - unlike the majority of politicians who seem to have no reasoning other than their own benefit. If he wanted to work purely for his own gain, it would have been laughably easy for him to do so. He didn't. That deserves respect.

And if you really hold all politicians in contempt, then you should just stop paying attention altogether. There's no point in trying to engage with the system if you'll immediately write anyone involved off on the basis that they are involved. Not all politicians are equally worthy of our scorn; Kennedy was one of the very few who was worth listening to on a regular basis IMO. You need to take a step back from your prejudices here.

Not sure I agree we paid for it for years. I don't think his alcoholism had any real effect on his voting record. It definitely had a major effect on his career and lifespan, which is unfortunate, but there we go.

Addiction is a pretty awful thing to struggle with - especially when you have to operate in a context where your drug of choice is on offer constantly. No person is perfect, and writing off his achievements because he had a flaw just seems like sour grapes. There are many politicians who have - and are still - working to do things that will cost us for years, whether that's dismantling the NHS and education system, taking us into wars, or drafting laws that will come back to fuck us all in new and exciting ways.

Kennedy was not one of them. Knowing where and when to have contempt is important, lest your contempt lose all meaning.

I still maintain that Kennedy was one of our better politicians - and I promise it isn't just because he is now dead.

I was actually saying on election night it was a pity he lost his seat. Most of the people who did deserved it, but Kennedy had consistently seemed like a reasonable, principled man - and there aren't many of them left.

Huuuuuh. Very interesting.

Thanks Junkenstein. 

Squid, there's some info in this article, I think. http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2015/01/27/facebook-active-users-decline/

I can't seem to get this link to work for me... could you C&P or is it crazy long?

That Breatharian guy... 

Tempted to email her the link and ask if this is what she meant...

[is]

Oh yeah, one of her characters is a breatharian.

She also believes one of her friends IRL is a breatharian.

I don't even 

Also: Today was the first time I have run across something I usually think of as 'internet crazy' in my real life.

One of the women in my screenwriting class - who I've gotten on with very well, really, and thought of as being one of the more 'together' of the group - got extremely upset with the tutor running it when he started quizzing her on the details of her 'fantasy world' and pressuring her about how she'd be able to show these things understandably to the audience.

It concluded with 'Well actually, (course tutor name), people like this exist in the real world but we can't see how they work because they operate in the fifth dimension. I know a Breatherian, and it is very possible to alter matter on the atomic level through the power of observation, because that's how electrons work. There's lots of people who can do stuff like this but they only work in communities because they want a quiet life.'

He paused for a moment and then said, 'Very well, but you must understand that you will need to convey how these things work to a mainstream audience if you wish to find funding for your film' and then moved on... which was a lot more diplomatic than I would have expected.

Later on she told me she was feeling a little 'off' today because her homeopath had suggested some new treatments and she was worried it might be too much.

I feel like I lost a lot of opportunities today by defaulting to 'smile and nod' mode. 

Why do parenting methods have anything at all to do with your relationship to your girlfriend in your mind?

Leaving aside that you're totally wrong about parenting methods, that's a creepy place your mind went to, bro.

That's an interesting point, actually. I've considered a few ideas regarding the connection before, in my head. Still working on it.

I'd just like to point out that you protested being called paternalistic in one breath and then admitted you've wondered about why your mind jumped to childrearing when you thought about your relationship with her before in the next.

You're a smart guy, right? I don't need to draw the line for you and basically repeat what most of the people ITT have pointed out to you already?