Somebody will say he has Asperger's in 4... 3... 2... 1. -- Georgetown

Permalink Flag Thursday, October 15, 2009 06:19 PM

Lots of Aspies are engineers, curiously enough. Just sayin'.

As of right now, there are 113 responses to this article; I've not read more than a handful, and so, apologize in advance if I'm repeating the thoughts of others.

Generally speaking, most banks are not to blame--the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve Board IS. Fed REserve Board basically forced banks into making bad loans (think back: the "every American Deserves to Own a Home" idea from the Clinton days. Did banks originate it? No way. If a particular bank did not wish to go along with what the Fed wanted, well, there goes the good interest rate to that bank!) What have they known about the current crisis? and When? and Why did they encourage the inflation to continue? THEY are the big baddies here. I'm not a banker, and didn't even play one on TV, but research goes a long way toward sorting out who/what is actually responsible for this hideous mess.

The article states: "While en route, the cabin is held at the equivalent of anywhere from around 5,000 to 8,000 feet above sea level, depending on the aircraft type and cruising altitude. (Pressurizing all the way to sea level is unnecessary and would put undue stress on the airframe.) In other words, you're breathing as you would in Denver or Mexico City -- minus the pollution." I'm not breathing the same as where I live, which is under 1000' above sea level. I CAN feel the difference, and get headachy and nauseated every time I fly. Five to eight thousand feet, on land, is problematic for a couple of days, as in altitude sickness. I'd love a scientific explanation, as flying has become a physical nightmare for me. (Not to mention the drunks, the screaming kids, the smells, the security lines). Having pilots in my family has given me a true love of flying--just not commercial flying. Regrettable. I confess, I readily believed the '20% oxygen adjustment' claim, and am glad to have it debunked. The 5000-8000' deal--that really IS obnoxious.

"Could it be pure coincidence that the most generous welfare states in the world have been those of ethnically homogeneous Nordic countries where, until recent immigration, nearly everyone was related to everyone else? Is the classic welfare state really a form of ethnic nepotism most likely to be adopted by a homogeneous, indeed tribal, nation-state?"

My understanding is that the Scandinavian nations (you are pretentious to say 'nation-state', dear writer), while having some growing pains related to recent immigration, are not consumed by the race 'issue'. Only here, only here, alas. I also object to the writer's seeming connection between ethnic homogeneity and welfare. If you are a socialist state, and your population is mainly of one ethnicity, and you really, really want to provide benefits to your population, tell me--to whom will you deliver the benefits? An African state?! Illogical, illogical. You make it sound like the Scandinavians did something wrong in providing for their own people. Do they provide the same benefits for their citizens of non-Scandinavian background? Why, yes. I've not heard Scandinavia described as "tribal", EVER. And I am American Swedish. I kind of think it'd be neat to have that designation (sigh) but, alas, it is not to be. We're not all inbred, either. Idiot. Thanks for the 'everyone was related to everyone else' line. Why not learn some basic science, or basic history, article writer? All humans are related to each other. Sheeeeeeeesh. Why, oh why, didn't Joe Conason write this article?!?!? Why, oh why, did I wake up and read this article? :)

You're quite a piece of work. Hatred AND scholarship all in one package. Today, I suspect, you've managed to offend nearly everybody with your various screeds. I didn't read much beyond the half of the comments pages, because I worried that you'd destroy my composure with even more if I continued. Well, this article is not about me, or you, or various nastinesses of the geopolitical world. Perhaps you could remain on point. (But you do like to hear yourself speak/read, don't you?)

Who doesn't love going to work after getting a raise, hmmm? Or at least, LIKE it better? A job with good starting pay is a sure inducement to greater job satisfaction, at least initially, IMHO. Adequate pay makes up for a lot of job deficiencies. No, it doesn't take away the mind-stultifying horror of a job that makes one brain-dead, but knowing that the increase in $ will provide economic relief does help one to truck on in to work every day. The worst day as a stay-at-home-no-adult-to-talk-to-mom is better than a best day in a horrid job. Infinitely. I suspect that feelings like these are what informs most women's answers to questionnaires like this one. Most of us have read some statistic or other that states something along the lines of--if women's work at home was paid work, it'd cost between $50,000 and $70,000 per year to retain her. I'd love to have gotten that kind of pay. It would have alleviated a lot of my feelings of 'non-contributing'. I know, I know, home work IS contributing, but we are so used to getting the paycheck nowadays, and taking that away almost inevitably produces conflicted feelings. Again, my opinion. But I think I"m right!

(I've not read all the other responses, and so apologize if I'm being redundant here.)

Sorry, bad copy/paste.

Instead of re-hashing a prior story, perhaps the article could have commented upon the story they headlined. Gee, basically nothing to report about that, guess we'll rework the old story; nobody should notice. What a time-waster for readers. Headline and story should agree, that's what I was taught in journalism class. I must be getting old, or less agreeable to journalistic posturing.