Hardly fake, methinks. Just a real nut job, so to speak.

I was less thinking of his ballbag and more of his thighs potentially landing square on top of the vertical bars and skewering his upper-legs something awful.

I was hoping he would really skewer any number of topics but there were few laughs in this.

So premise A, B, and C are all inconsequential, that I can give you. But if I give you that, then every piece of information we have is skewered and corrupted in some fashion (Regarding history, less so science such as global warming.) If we agree all information is corrupt, and significantly so, which is also a logical fact, then history in general is meaningless. So the study of history and "facts" is stupid. Not that I agree with Red, for I am more like Socrates.

@RedSky

Selling assets and, to a certain degree, the reduction of public employment is an unreasonable demand. There's too much controversy about the effects it has, with me being clearly biased to one side.

Privatisation of essential services (healthcare, public transport, electricity, water) is being opposed or even undone in significant parts of Europe, since it generally came with worse service at much higher costs and no accountability whatsoever. Therefore I see it as very reasonable for Syriza to stop the privatisation of their electricity grid and their railroad. There are, of course, unessentials that might be handed over to the private sector, but like Varoufakis said, not in the shape of a fire sale within a crisis. That'll only profit the usual scavengers, not the people.

Similarly, public employment. There's good public employment (essential services, administration) and "bad" public employment. Troika demands included the firing of cleaning personnel, who were replaced by a significantly more expensive private service. And a Greek court decision ruled the firing as flat out illegal. For Syriza to not hire them back would not only have been unreasonable financially as well as socially, it would have been a violation of a court order. Same for thousands of others who were fired illegally, according to a ruling by the Greek Supreme Court.

Troika demands are all too often against Greek or even European law, and while the previous governments were fine with being criminals, Syriza might actually be inclined to uphold the law.


On the issue of reforms, I would argue that the previous governments did bugger all to establish working institutions. Famously, the posts of department heads of the tax collection agency were auctioned for money, even under the last government. Everything is in shambles, with no intent of changing anything that would have undermined the nepotic rules of the five families. Syriza's program has been very clear about the changes they plan to institute, so if it really was the intent of the troika to see meaningful reform the way it is being advocated to their folks at home, they would be in support of Syriza.

Interventions by the troika have crashed the health care system, the educational system and the pension system. Public pension funds were practically wiped out during the first haircut in 2012, creating a hole of about 20 billion Euros in the next five years.

I would like to address the issue of taxation specifically. Luxembourg adopted as a business model to be an enabler of tax evasion, even worse than Switzerland. In charge at that time was none other than Jean-Claude Juncker, who was just elected President of the European Commission. He's directly involved in tax evasion on a scale of hundreds of billions of Euros every year. How is the troika to have any credibility in this matter with him in charge?

Similarly, German politicians are particularly vocal about corruption and bribery in Greece. Well, who are the biggest sources of bribery in Greece? German corporations. Just last week there was another report of a major German arms manufacturer who paid outrageous bribes to officials in Greece. As much as I support the fight against corruption and bribery, some humility would suit them well.


As for the GDP growth in Greece: I think it's a fluke. The deflation skewers the numbers to a point where I can't take them seriously until the complete dataset is available. Might be growth, might not be. Definatly not enough to fight off a humanitarian crisis.

Surpluses. If everyone was a zealous as Germany, the deficit would in fact be considerably narrower, which is a good thing. Unfortunatly, it would have been a race to the bottom. Germany could only suppress wage growth, and subsequently domestic demand, so radically, because the other members of the Eurozone were eager to expand. They ran higher-than-average growth, which allowed Germany to undercut them without going into deflation. Nowadays, Germany still has below-target wage growth, so the only way for Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy to gain competetiveness against Germany is to go into deflation. That's where we are in Europe: half a continent in deflation. With all its side effects of mass unemployment (11%+ in Europe, after lots of trickery), falling demand, falling investment, etc. Not good. Keynes' idea of an International Clearing Union might work better, especially since we already use similar concepts within nations to balance regions.

Bond yields of Germany could not have spiked at the same time as those of the rest of the Eurozone. The legal requirements for pension funds, insurance funds, etc demand a high percentage of safe bonds, and when the peripheral countries were declared unsafe, they had nowhere to go but Germany. Also, a bet against France is quite a risk, but a bet against Germany is downright foolish. Still, supply of safe bonds is tight right now, given the cuts all over the place. French yields are at historic lows, German yield is negative. Even Italian and Spanish yields were in the green as soon as Draghi said the ECB would do whatever it takes.

The current spike in Greek yields strikes me as a bet that there will be a face-off between the troika and Greece, with very few positive outcomes for the Greek economy in the short run.

QE: 100% agreement. Fistful of cash to citizens would not have solved any of the core issues of the Eurozone (highly unequal ULCs, systemic tax evasion, tax competition/undercutting, no European institutions, etc), but it would have been infinitely better than anything they did. If they were to put it on the table right now as a means to combat deflation, I'd say go for it. Take the helicopters airborne, as long as it's bottom-up and not trickle-down. Though to reliably increase inflation there would have to be widescale increases in wages. Not going to happen. Maybe if Podemos wins in Spain later his year.

Same for the last paragraph. The ECB could have stuffed the EIB to the brim, which in return could have funded highly beneficial and much needed projects, like a proper European electricity grid. Won't happen though. Debt is bad, even monetised debt during a deflation used purely for investments.

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

@lantern53
did you just compare a famous nazi warmongering propagandist (who got his playbook from an american *edward bernaise*) to a political satirist?

a political satirist who is skewering actual so-called "journalists"?

jon stewart is NOT a journalist and this segment is not about reporting on ferguson but rather pointing to the absurdity of some news outlets and how THEY propagandize.

nobody knows for certain the details of what went down,mainly in part to "news" outlets such as the daily show is revealing to be muppets rather than journalists but ALSO how the police department is handling the situation.

the news outlets are also ignoring the under lying reasons why there was rioting and looting.

or do you actually believe that people in this community just decided to blow up businesses and take to the streets.as if it were inherent to their nature and that rioting is fun!
yaaay rioting! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEE!

but maybe...
juuuust maybe.
there had been an ongoing persecution brought on by years of flagrant abuse of authority and a disproportionate focus on this poor community?
think that could be possible?
not only is it possible but probable,because thats exactly what many of the residents have actually said.

a few decades of bad policing will have that effect on people.

who is the blame?
do we blame the residents?who after years of police stepping on their necks resorts to violence?
well,they do hold some responsibility.though we may understand,we cannot condone.

or do we blame the police?

well,several weeks ago you made the argument that it was actually those in command that set the tone for the entire force.

that was a good argument.
i agree with that argument.
being former military i understand the chain of command and how vital it is to a working and successful force that wields immense power.

so here is my basic problem with your commentary:
you chastise stewart for ignoring the violence,rioting and protesting,while at the VERY SAME TIME ignore the REASONS why that that violence erupted.

you appear to be very vocal in your support of the police,ANY police,which commendable...even noble,but you,yourself,noted that those in command could be corrupt,vicious and incompetent.

so my question is this:
why would you defend those cops?

Congratulations! Your video, TDS: Jon Stewart Skewers Obama's NSA Speech, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 18 Badge!

Your video, TDS: Jon Stewart Skewers Obama's NSA Speech, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Exactly.
It's a rather clever deconstruction of contemporary pop music trends.

In my opinion they outdid most of Lonely Island's efforts; skewered the industry without needing profanity or sex jokes.*

* i like profanity and sex jokes

Waldo almost got the high-seas skewer there...Do that correctly and it's called "pulling an Irwin."

I think the Iron Maiden one is wrong. Maybe the name used to be something different, but the device exists. Basically swords mounted inside a case so when it's closed it skewers you.

You couldn't have possibly read my post and the spirit in which it was written and mistook me for someone who has a desire to place in office someone who would fiscally damage this country more than it already is. Or was that rhetorical question just designed to make a point? I want all the boats to rise, don't you?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

I'm not 100% against businesspeople being involved in politics, but you have to understand where a Venture Capitalist like Romney comes from.
For example. Sealy used to be the biggest seller of mattresses in America by a wide margin. Huge, very successful company. Bain (under Romney) bought a controlling share and re-structured the company. They slashed the ad budget and dropped the quality so mattresses lasted only half as long. Profits shot up, and a few years later Bain flipped the company for a huge profit. But those profits were at the expense of customer loyalty Sealy quickly started to hemorrhage money, and competitors were quick to swoop in and take up the slack. Two weeks ago Sealy agreed to a buyout to avoid bankruptcy. It's estimated several thousand employees will be laid off in the process. They go from being a rock steady, solid-performing company, to ruin because of Bain's involvement.
Is that the kind of government you want?
>> ^silvercord:
It's also important to remember that neither broke businesses nor broke governments can take care of people.
I have run my own business off and on for thirty five years and can honestly say that I have never looked at it with the cynicism I see in the general population. I believe that if we take care of people, both our customers and employees, the dollars will take care of themselves. By the same token, I can't cripple the business by taking care of people or there won't be any business left to take care of people. That is what making a profit is all about; people get taken care of.
The same applies to government. The government which insists on not operating in the black will ultimately hurt the very people it desires to help. Our government simply must get back in the black. And when that tide comes in, all the boats rise. >> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^Mauru:
How do you call that: "Saved by the bell" For Romney?
To be fair, Obama was playing hugely on his experience there.
I am not a huge fan of Obama, but in this whole debate Romney came across as a bit of a clown. He obviously knows a lot about business stuff but his world-view really is quite skewered as many have suspected.

I think it's important to remember though, a businesses first concern is to make money first, take care of people second. A government's job is to take care of people first.
Hiring a venture capitalist to run a government is a little like hiring a butcher as a dog-walker because he 'knows about animals'.

I'm not 100% against businesspeople being involved in politics, but you have to understand where a Venture Capitalist like Romney comes from.

For example. Sealy used to be the biggest seller of mattresses in America by a wide margin. Huge, very successful company. Bain (under Romney) bought a controlling share and re-structured the company. They slashed the ad budget and dropped the quality so mattresses lasted only half as long. Profits shot up, and a few years later Bain flipped the company for a huge profit. But those profits were at the expense of customer loyalty Sealy quickly started to hemorrhage money, and competitors were quick to swoop in and take up the slack. Two weeks ago Sealy agreed to a buyout to avoid bankruptcy. It's estimated several thousand employees will be laid off in the process. They go from being a rock steady, solid-performing company, to ruin because of Bain's involvement.

Is that the kind of government you want?

>> ^silvercord:

It's also important to remember that neither broke businesses nor broke governments can take care of people.
I have run my own business off and on for thirty five years and can honestly say that I have never looked at it with the cynicism I see in the general population. I believe that if we take care of people, both our customers and employees, the dollars will take care of themselves. By the same token, I can't cripple the business by taking care of people or there won't be any business left to take care of people. That is what making a profit is all about; people get taken care of.
The same applies to government. The government which insists on not operating in the black will ultimately hurt the very people it desires to help. Our government simply must get back in the black. And when that tide comes in, all the boats rise. >> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^Mauru:
How do you call that: "Saved by the bell" For Romney?
To be fair, Obama was playing hugely on his experience there.
I am not a huge fan of Obama, but in this whole debate Romney came across as a bit of a clown. He obviously knows a lot about business stuff but his world-view really is quite skewered as many have suspected.

I think it's important to remember though, a businesses first concern is to make money first, take care of people second. A government's job is to take care of people first.
Hiring a venture capitalist to run a government is a little like hiring a butcher as a dog-walker because he 'knows about animals'.

It's also important to remember that neither broke businesses nor broke governments can take care of people.

I have run my own business off and on for thirty five years and can honestly say that I have never looked at it with the cynicism I see in the general population. I believe that if we take care of people, both our customers and employees, the dollars will take care of themselves. By the same token, I can't cripple the business by taking care of people or there won't be any business left to take care of people. That is what making a profit is all about; people get taken care of.

The same applies to government. The government which insists on not operating in the black will ultimately hurt the very people it desires to help. Our government simply must get back in the black. And when that tide comes in, all the boats rise. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^Mauru:
How do you call that: "Saved by the bell" For Romney?
To be fair, Obama was playing hugely on his experience there.
I am not a huge fan of Obama, but in this whole debate Romney came across as a bit of a clown. He obviously knows a lot about business stuff but his world-view really is quite skewered as many have suspected.

I think it's important to remember though, a businesses first concern is to make money first, take care of people second. A government's job is to take care of people first.
Hiring a venture capitalist to run a government is a little like hiring a butcher as a dog-walker because he 'knows about animals'.