Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
I haven't had a television set in about two years and really haven't watched much TV in the last five years so my analysis might be a little out of date.deer of the dawn wrote:I don;t think you can say that TV hasn't changed since 1958.
Although to be one is not necessarily to be the other, I don't think one can deny that one is often cover for the other. Or motivated by it. Obviously not in all cases, perhaps not even in most cases, but in many cases certainly.peter wrote:Lets be clear about this. To be anti-immigration is not to be a racist. No country in the world can be expected to take in large numbers of economic migrants and provide jobs for them at the expense of providing jobs for its indigenous population - and yet the media (certainly the UK media at least) insist on conflating the one with the other. Why do they do this?
Alas that is a reflection of the people rather than the issue. While I agree that in the past the anti-immigration arguments have provided a shield for mindless racism, I think in the current UK situation where some 25 % of 18 - 25y.o's languish at home never having worked, the very real problem of not having a reserve of 'take all' jobs at the base of the working spectrum is starting to hit home. In the absence of your work of choice any work is prefferable to none and the more so for the young who so need to get their feet on the ground at this early stage in thier post-education life. Only a fool would hold any ill-feeling toward those economic migrants who quite legally come to earn better wages than they could at home to give themselves that head start that they also need. But to state that the immigration policy of your countrymight be ill-suited to the times dose not qualify you to be labled as one of these numbskulls.I'm Murrin wrote:People seem to have difficulty talking about it without saying racist things.
But I am also surprised by the lack of animosity. True, there is palpable anger among native Bostonians that their town has become a Baltic satellite in next to no time.
But it’s not an anger directed at the Eastern Europeans. It’s aimed squarely at the Government and the EU.
Lincolnshire’s vast flatlands have always needed people to pick and pack the vegetables and flowers which are the bedrock of the local economy.
Traditionally, the work was done by students and by part-time workers brought in from urban areas such as Doncaster and Nottingham.
But in 2004, Britain opened its doors to the new round of EU member nations, while, crucially, not implementing the labour restrictions imposed by other countries such as France and Germany. The result was an influx of large numbers from Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, happy to be paid wages and accept living conditions well below the local norm.
For their part, many locals found they could not compete with newcomers prepared to work longer hours while living in accommodation that verged on squalor.
As wage levels came down and local workers either moved elsewhere or fell back on the benefits system, so more and more migrants came in to fill the gaps.
Yes, rather like getting fish and chips in NYC. If there's a restaurant called Le Gavroche, it has to be good!peter wrote: Serves you right for eating a hotdog in a town that has some of the best restaurants in the world (:)). Next time you're there go for the buisiness lunch in Le Gavroche and learn the true meaning of ecstacy!
Eh, I guess I was going more thinking about the question "why would someone care about limits on sexual images at all?" (but I decided to be vague! Hmm, that one is vague too.)Hashi Lebwohl wrote:In this instance, I will have to disagree--we really are still quite prudish when it comes to the subject of network television. For the most part, network TV still operates as if it were 1958, except that shows may televise a married couple lying in the same bad, the interior of a bathroom, and some slight cursing may occur.
Sounds like you're annoyed that people don't bother to set limits on their own kids, maybe just wishing someone else would?Ostensibly these rules are so that TV shows do not offend those with more sensitive tastes or display inappropriate images to children despite the fact that those children are probably watching cable shows or browsing the Internet where nothing is forbidden.
Such decisions generally make me feel respected.Contrary to my offline nature, which often finds me being quite the flirtatious scoundrel, I am not going anywhere near that statement.
To diverge off from the main topic here a little...peter wrote:In the absence of your work of choice any work is prefferable to none and the more so for the young who so need to get their feet on the ground at this early stage in thier post-education life.
It does always annoy me when irresponsible parents let their little hellions do pretty much what they please. Those little hellions are going to grow up into big hellions and then they become a problem for everyone around them.Linna Heartlistener wrote:Sounds like you're annoyed that people don't bother to set limits on their own kids, maybe just wishing someone else would?
Hey, it's what they had in front of their world class museum.peter wrote:Serves you right for eating a hotdog in a town that has some of the best restaurants in the world (:)). Next time you're there go for the buisiness lunch in Le Gavroche and learn the true meaning of ecstacy!Damelon wrote:I ate the oddest hot dog in London. I bought it from a stand outside of the British Museum. It was rather phallic. They took a long thin baguette roll, where they had cut an end off and bored out a hole in it. They squirted mustard (they also offered ketchup, but I'm older than 5 and so don't eat ketchup with a hot dog) down the hole and inserted the hot dog. There was no mustard eating into it at first it was all at the end of the bun.
. I'm sure Le Gavroche is good, but it also sounds like the kind of place where you need a platinum card.. I did find a good Italian restaurant near the hotel, and a good local pub. What more does one need. 
.Honestly, if there are enough "take-all" jobs at the bottom of the pay scale to allow rafts of immigrants in to do them, why are those young people languishing at home, stinking up their parent's parlors and eating all the Doritos?linna wrote:To diverge off from the main topic here a little...
Back when you were in their shoes, this assumption was firmly-held - and for good reason. (sanity!)
But I think a lot of young people... don't consciously realize that languishing at home without work is causing them so much grief.
Many of them think the problem is that they can't seem to get a good job within their chosen field; not the fact that they aren't working at all.
(Erm, at least that's the case with our culture here. Do you think that's the case where you are?)
In other words, a full-time office job with benefits. My point is that a college degree ought to be a ticket out of low-wage and low-skilled jobs, not the entry level requirement for one. But that's what our economy is mostly providing for new grads right now.It ought to be. Little tid-bit related to that, I spotted somewhere some research that put a big "Lie" or at least "Misleading" sign on the "people don't have the schools/education to fill the jobs" meme...aliantha wrote:Well, granted. But typically, in America, a person holding any sort of college degree expects their first job to have *some* perks. For instance: indoors, sitting down, with more than rudimentary communication skills required, and with a minimum of physical exertion expected.
That's assuming your major wasn't in some field like veterinary (heavy lifting) or teaching (lots of standing).