Modern Germany has a lot of issues right now as well.It does. Germany is actually doing pretty good compared to everyone else right now, so I thought he was referring to modern Germany in a serious manner.Compared to the rest of modern Europe and the US, they did.LMAO!**blink **I think that capitalism and socialism are both very bad things in their pure, unadulterated forms. What is needs is a good balance of capitalistic and socialistic policies. The difficulty lies in finding that balance.Germany did a nice job.I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure HD is referring to the fascist model of combining socialism and capitalism and you are thinking of the current model of combining socialism and capitalism.
I think this once again demonstrates the need for a sarcasm font. ;)
I don't deny that. I'm saying that, compared to their allies, they're doing pretty good.
When Christmas is over I'm going to clean up this thread and sweep all of you reactionaries into the dustbin of history.
Until then, a little score-card to help follow conversations and my sometimes cryptic comments:
Mikhail Bakunin--Russian nobleman turned anarchist revolutionary. With a hell-and-fire style all of his own, Bakunin was the continuator of Auguste Blanqui-style revolutionary politics. The fallout between followers of Bakunin and followers of Marx was the reason for the demise of the First Workingman's International. Also, the one-eyed Other who refused to die on Lost, Season Three.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon--French socialist thinker who at one time considered himself to be an anarchist, but then changed his mind and wanted to be called something else. One of his most famous books was The Philosophy of Poverty, which Marx attacked in his own book, The Poverty of Philosophy. (If Marx were alive today, he'd be an internet troll.) According to classical Marxist thought, Proudhon was writing from the vantage point of the pre-industiral, artisan-based working class, which Marx derided as petty-bourgeois and reactionary.
Petty-bourgeoisie: According to Marxist sociology, the people who stand in between the capitalists and the proletariat. This includes: professionals, students, intellectuals, peasants. In general, "petty-bourgeois" is a catch-all abuse term to be used against all of those on the left who disagree with Marxists.
Property is Theft!: Catchy slogan coined by Proudhon. Once used by Rick to chide Vivian in The Young Ones
Stooge of the Plutocracy--Phrase trademarked by Doodlebug Anklebiter with which to greet all visitors to Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism thread. Reached it's apogee when he got to call Dr. Games a "stooge of the cryptoplutocracy."
Oh, Citizen HD, where are you?
Could you please tell us whether you were snarkily invoking Godwin, or genuinely heaping praise on modern welfare-state Germany?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly? A little of both. Showing two sides, same country, of the same general idea having radically different results.
Systems don't make things good or bad, people do.
Oh, and you forgot to add "living off his buddy's trust fund" to the Marx as internet troll statement.
One of the things I really disliked about Marx the person. He wasn't capable of taking care of himself and had to live on his partner's parent's money to feed his family. Nasty, evil Capitalist money. Hypocrisy at its finest.
;-)
Honestly? A little of both. Showing two sides, same country, of the same general idea having radically different results.
Systems don't make things good or bad, people do.
Oh, and you forgot to add "living off his buddy's trust fund" to the Marx as internet troll statement.
One of the things I really disliked about Marx the person. He wasn't capable of taking care of himself and had to live on his partner's parent's money to feed his family. Nasty, evil Capitalist money. Hypocrisy at its finest.
;-)
:)
No, Citizen HD, feudalist money. The capitalist money he got from Engels who in between editing volumes of Anti-Duhring and The Origins of Private Property, the Family and the State ran his father's factories in Manchester.
Get your facts right, stooge!
EDIT: Woops! When you wrote "partner," I thought you meant his wife. I don't know why. Probably because I've been up for 22 hours.
The problem with the US is that it tossed the 9th and 10th into the toilet.
Another problem with the US is that people tend to compare it to European countries, despite the fact that European socialist countries are almost all postage stamp sized and the US is not.
What is needed is for the Federal government to recommit itself to the 9th and 10th and, if the people want socialist policies, they can have them on the state level (the state being closer in size to the European socialist countries which are so often brought up when discussing the virtues of socialism).
For matters of socioeconomics, superficy is mostly irrelevant : that is population that matters.
Germany has a 80+ million population, a bit more that a quarter of the USA. Both are playing in the same league in terms of societal complexity. Comparing both isn't inadequate.
Comparing one of them to microcountries with tiny populations such as Andorre, Monaco, or Liechenstein would be.
Aww now it's getting all serious in here again. It ain't called 'Comrade Anklebiters dour argumentative revolutionary socialism snark thread'. Lighten up! It's Christmas! Discus how to unionize Comrade Anklebiter's oppressed cousins in Santa's sweatshops at the North Pole (or as they call them: The Santanic Mills)
Liberate the Christmas Elves! Death to the Plutocrat in red velvet!
|
Aww now it's getting all serious in here again. It ain't called 'Comrade Anklebiters dour argumentative revolutionary socialism snark thread'. Lighten up! It's Christmas! Discus how to unionize Comrade Anklebiter's oppressed cousins in Santa's sweatshops at the North Pole (or as they call them: The Santanic Mills)
Liberate the Christmas Elves! Death to the Plutocrat in red velvet!
Hey, those are my country's elves - Anklebiter's involvement would be just another act of american imperialist expansion in the artic! As bad as the russians!
Hey, those are my country's elves - Anklebiter's involvement would be just another act of american imperialist expansion in the artic! As bad as the russians!
Now I am sure Comrade Anklebiter as a dedicated Trotskyist is all for exporting the revolution to poor oppressed goblinoids everywhere, including Canada. I'm sure his cousins would take umbrage at being claimed as 'my country's elves'. Autonomy for the Christmas elves! Break the candy cane shackles of oppression! Down with the bearded lackey of religio-opiate inspired crass consumerism! Stop elf exploitation!
Do we know enough about the North Pole's socio-economic system to peg it as capitalist? For all we know the elves may own the means of toy production as an anarcho-syndicalist co-op and Mr. Claus is merely a democratically elected foreman chosen by his peers. In fact, his red uniform may indicate sympathy with the international labor movement.
G%!#**n elven commies. We need to abolish Christmas for the sake of proper American capitalist values!
I love irony.
As do I. It is quite delicious, no?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comrade Anklebiter hates Christmas.
Comrade Anklebiter hates all posters who shop at the following stores: Brookstone, The Body Shop, Champs, Clark's, Williams-Sonoma, The Walking Company, Aeroposte or whatever the f+~@ it's called, Gamestop, The Children's Place, Hollister's and many, many more.
Comrade Anklebiter wishes that everyone would convert to Judaism.
Comrade Anklebiter wishes that he still got paid overtime everytime he goes over 5 hours like he did last Christmas.
Comrade Anklebiter has discovered that shutting off the belt whenever a package falls on the floor is safe and fun! It also makes the supervisors mad!
Comrade Anklebiter loves it when the supervisors are mad!
Comrade Anklebiter will try to stop talking about himself in the third person.
When it comes to socialism, size does matter. It's got to span the whole globe or it's no good.
As for the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution...Citizen Duck, you do realize you're in a thread dedicated to international proletarian socialist revolution, right? We have about as much interest in that slaveowner's document as we do in the laws of Hammurabi.
Finally, my lack of sleep and concomitant reading comprehension problems made me look like a fool when arguing with Citizen HD. The shame!
So, I rethought it a bit and tried to come up with a foolproof argument that would make Citizen HD look like the stooge of the plutocracy that he is and amuse Comrade Curtin at the same time. I thought about it all day and night, and then turned on the radio on the car-ride to work last night and there it was: the perfect refutation of Citizen HD! Suck on that, stooge!
No, they're not.
4 TIMES larger is a significant difference.
Even if we don't include all the other factors which make the US significantly different in social complexity from Germany (radical geographical differences around the country (New England vs Colorado, for example), radically different histories (New Orleans vs. Los Angeles, for example), radically different cultures (San Fran vs. Dayton, Ohio, for example)), there's NO WAY a person can defend the assertion that Germany and the USA are playing in the same league in terms of social complexity.
No it isn't. By your logic, Canada (34 M) and Australia (21 M) would be dismissed as insignificant too.
It's plainly obvious that you don't know Germany, or Europe either.
Inhabitants of Rhenany, old Prussia or Bavaria have no more in common in terms of traditions and culture that those of Dakota and New England. Heck, they weren't even living in the same country twenty years ago ! And they have got plains, forests and mountains, too.
Waving away their achievements on the basis "they are have it easier because they are a smaller country" is silly. It would be more constructive (but more difficult) to ask yourself what they do differently from you, and if it's a better way or not. Good ideas come from all horizons, including unamerican ones, the hard part is recongnizing them.
For instance, Marx was german (shameless sucking up to our gracious guest)...
Well, I tried. I'll leave y'all to it.
Death to St Nick! Free the elves!
*blink*
Well, I tried. I'll leave y'all to it.
Death to St Nick! Free the elves!
*blink*
But, but...I linked a Madonna song as a refutation of a political argument! That's funny!
But, but...I linked a Madonna song as a refutation of a political argument! That's funny!Well, I tried. I'll leave y'all to it.
Death to St Nick! Free the elves!
*blink*
Not your fault comrade. Besides, you don't need a grumpy libertarian hanging around, it makes your fellow socialists surly.
Dosvedanya!
*blink*
Pierre Trudeau, a former PM of Canada, once said said, "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
I think that makes it pretty clear that Canada and the US are in different leagues.
I knew this one. It just means that USA is an ally as dangerous as it is powerful, as it tends to be reckless in the application of said power.
Nobody ever said that USA wasn't an economically powerful country. I sure didn't. May I remind you that your opening stance was that the USA couldn't be compared to european countries because of its larger superficy? Please do not change subject.
I agree that most german policies couldn't be transposed in the USA, but not for the reasons you think. It isn't a question of square miles, or of population (a 1 to 4 population ratio is nothing in terms of socioeconomical complexity), but more a matter of mindset, of traditions and of history.
When you just wave away all european policies without bothering to look if some of them could be gainfully borrowed and adapted, it just sounds a little like "we are so one of a kind that we have nothing to learn from anybody".
I don't know if you are guilty of intellectual arrogance, being this side of the keyboard, but can warn you that you sound like you are.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Santa is a non profit organization, with strong ecological concerns. Just compare the per mile carbon footprint of a turboreactor and a reindeer driven sled if you aren't convinced.
If we were to expand Germany's borders so that it's population would equal the US, we'd end up with borders that reach into the United Kingdom and into Poland, it would include France, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland.
Sounds familiar... Hasn't it been already done? :)
What you fail to grasp is that the diversity of mindsets, of traditions, and of history which the US has to a far greater degree than Germany has is related to the far greater square miles and population of the US. And, yes, a 1 to 4 population ratio is significant in terms of socioeconomic complexity. The US, also, has about 10 TIMES the land mass and Germany has about 7.5 TIMES more population density (the US people are more spread out, which reflects the greater cultural diversity they've maintained).
Maybe, maybe not. I'm quite aware that the USA have been built, and still are, on immigration. Though, I do agree that knowing it from across the ocean isn't the same as experiencing it firsthand.
But this last argument cuts both ways : I wonder if you, in turn, do realize the complexity of european societies. First, western countries have also known waves after waves of immigration, and still do. Their populations do not stay in place, either. And they do keep their traditions, for centuries.
For instance, my father's family came from netherlands, and settled in Britain. My mother's came from Germany (upper Rhenany to be exact). My girlfriend's is part belgian. I'm french. Just south of my home, you can find the Pays Basque, settled since roman times by people who still speaks their own tongue. They are geographically as close to other populations as you can get, but never lost their cultural identity for millenia, before Colomb's discovery. So no need for vast wildernesses, but I do agree that isolated communities would have an easier time of keeping alive their own traditions.
So I'm not sure about your claim that a young country is always more complex than an older one. I wouldn't with the opposite one, either. Traditions and differences can fade with the centuries... or not, despite all attempts made by various authorities to erase them. They are not a privilege of first, second or third generation immigrants.
That said, may I remind you that we were talking about politics and economics, not about cultural traditions? What difference does it make on their economical policies that USA and/or Europe harbor immigrants from all parts of the world? Isn't it more a problem of dominant political philosophies?
I mean, there is nothing like your libertarians or your evengelical christians in Europe (nothing with the same political clout, that is. I'm sure you could find some individuals here or there holding those philosphies). Isn't it more relevant that the number of cultural groups on your soil?
On the contrary, I have looked at european policies and bothered to look to see if some of them could be borrowed and adapted. I've realized that the only way to adapt them is to embrace the 9th and 10th Amendments and put the socialist governments at the state levels (which are more comparable in size to most socialist European countries).
If you want socialism, put it at the state level where it has the best chance of actually working.
I'm really curious here. What would be the difficulties at the federal level, according to you? Are they technical, or political (as in, "no way we can get away with that in DC, but maybe in Vermont...")?
Moving from France to Germany? That's what? 653.5 miles (capital to capital) In the last year alone, I lived in Ohio, moved to Virginia (449 miles), then moved to Colorado (1, 671 miles). What you think of as "immigration", we don't. To us, immigration is what my ex-sister in law did (travel from South Korea to the US).And moving from Tijuana to San Diego (~20 miles) wouldn't be immigrating? Does that mean you don't have to bother with paperwork at the border?
Immigration isn't a matter of distance. Legally it's a matter of national borders. Practically, it's a matter of culture. Moving from France to Germany gets you a different language, different government, laws, legal system, much greater difference in culture than any of your moves in the US. Not to mention hundreds of history and war.
Yes, legally its a matter of crossing national borders. You've just missed the point.
The overwhelming majority of US citizens do not live within 20 miles of a border with a foreign country. So, for the overwhelming majority of US citizens, immigration is not at all related to moving 20 miles away from where they are.
Here, you don’t make any sense. Immigration isn’t a matter of “extra miles”: it’s about cutting out your roots here and putting them down again there.
As thejeff rightly said, twenty miles can do the trick. Moving around the USA from Virginia to Colorado doesn’t, it’s just a nice change of scenery.
I agree that for most immigrants into the USA, it means a longer trip than that (as for most immigrants into Europe, who come from Africa, Asia or the middle east). So? What’s the point? What difference does it make?
Remember that we are talking about economic policies here. The number of ethnicities you have got on your soil and their cumulated mileage seems quite irrelevant.
You're not paying attention to what I've written. Its kinda annoying. I didn't say that the only difference between the US and Germany is that the US is a young country. I said that it a.) is a much younger country b.) with a much larger population and c.) a much larger land mass and d.) is a nation of immigrants from all over the world.
Who isn’t paying attention here? I already clearly stated that I don’t agree with you on the consequences of points b, c and d.
Yes, the USA have a greater superficy, a (not so) greater population and a lot of immigrants. So? How does it translate into a limited choice of economical policies for the USA, according to you?
Geographic and demographic facts --> ????? ---> No way those policies meant for small states would work for us! (your claim)
The problem is with a federal government acting as a nanny state when that federal government is over a thousand miles out of touch with what is going on in many of the states. The problem is with the technical challenges of trying to maintain that nanny state to oversee a population significantly larger than any European socialist country. In Europe, if you don't like your government, you can get up and move to another country with little trouble. You can, in essence, vote with your feet. That keeps at least some degree of restraint over the European governments. In the US, if the Federal government becomes corrupt, simply picking up and moving to live under a different government is far harder.
The sheer size of your country was most certainly a determining factor back in the eighteenth century. It explains the choice of a federal state, and the peculiar way you elect your president. But is it still such an important factor now, with modern technology?
You already have some welfare programs at the federal level. Medicare, for instance, is doing pretty well. So it seems there is no absolute impossibility here. Common wisdom would be that federal level programs are better in terms of scale savings (no need to duplicate them into fifty states, no need for interface rules between those fifty different programs, etc). Centralization can mean LESS bureaucracy; your current helthcare is a good example of decentralization gone rampant.
Do you really believe that overseeing 300 million Americans is an order of magnitude harder than doing the same for 80 millions of Germans, 65 millions of Frenchmen or 500 millions Europeans? Others do and/or have done it, why not the USA?
I fail to see your point about that “voting with your feet” idea. Nobody leaves one’s native country just because the results of the last election (we are speaking about democracies here) don’t suit him. Except for rich people who happen to disagree with fiscal law, of course. It just doesn’t happen: people wait for the next election and vote again. You also forget the language barrier, which is a strong limiting factor. Such population moves between EU countries do happen, but on a very limited scale, and to seek jobs not for political reasons. Middle class employed people stay put.
Anyway, even if it was true, how the threat of disgruntled people moving out would constitute a “restraint” for our governments?
Your choice of words is also quite interesting : using “federal government acting as nanny state” and “corrupt” in the same line of thought could be seen as indicative of a little bias on the matter.
Immigration isn’t a matter of “extra miles”: it’s about cutting out your roots here and putting them down again there.Moving 2000 miles doesn't, in your opinion, cut one's roots?? Have you ever actually moved 2000 miles? Your social network (friends, extended family) don't just get up and move with you when you do that. But if you move 20 miles, you're not cut off from that social network.
Except when there is a frontier in the middle, which is the definition of immigration. Last time I checked, moving around inside the borders of a given political entity isn't.
Sorry you had to give up your friends, but that is NOT the subject.
I agree that for most immigrants into the USA, it means a longer trip than that (as for most immigrants into Europe, who come from Africa, Asia or the middle east). So? What’s the point? What difference does it make?You keep trying to compare immigration to Germany to immigration to the US. Not only does immigration to Germany typically mean getting up and moving a short trip, but the US has a net migration rate about 8 TIMES higher than Germany.
Tell that to afghanis, turks, or other africans who comes to Europe. Short trip, indeed.
Rapported to their respective populations, your numbers about immigration into Germany means it's only two times lower that the US one. Big deal. Is it a contest to know who has the biggest?
EDIT: according to the United Nations, in 2010, the percentage of immigrants in the population of the United States was 13%. In Germany, it was... 13%, and in France, 11 %. HUGE difference, indeed!
Even if USA has got more immigration per capita, what difference does it make on macroeconomics? As earlier said :
Its not irrelevant. The US has a far greater degree of cultural diversity. This affects its socioeconomics. Laws are based on cultural metanarratives, but shared cultural metanarratives don't exist in the US to the degree that they do in Germany. Take, for example, gun control. In the US, there are wide open places where cops could take forever to arrive at the scene. I'm talking here about, for example, homes in the middle of Kansas. There are, also, areas like the big coastal cities (New York, LA, etc.) where people are much more tightly packed together. People in Kansas have a higher need for guns. In the big coastal cities, guns are more associated with criminals. There is no shared cultural metanarrative surrounding guns and crime.
Remember that we are talking about economic policies here. The number of ethnicities you have got on your soil and their cumulated mileage seems quite irrelevant.
Sure, you have got a VERY different approach to gun control that anybody else.
Weren't we talking of economics, instead? Have you an economical example to put forward?
Medicare, for instance, is doing pretty wellNo, its not.
Yes it is, for foreign observators with no political agenda in this matter.
Common wisdom would be that federal level programs are better in terms of scale savings (no need to duplicate them into fifty states, no need for interface rules between those fifty different programs, etc).That's not common wisdom. Common wisdom is that laws should be responsive to the needs of the people. Common wisdom is that a government seat a thousand miles away from the people isn't going to be as responsive to those needs as a government seat located where the people are located.
Well, maybe with a phone or two?
You know, even 100 miles is a way too long distance for a "hands-on", "see it by yourself" style of government.
Are you proposing to downscale political power in the USA back to the city, or even the county (some are a bit too large, but still feasible) ? With a population in the millions (even just one or two millions), government accessibility becomes a mythical entity. That's the whole point of representative democracy, by opposition to direct democracy.
Do you really believe that overseeing 300 million Americans is an order of magnitude harder than doing the same for 80 millions of Germans, 65 millions of Frenchmen or 500 millions Europeans? Others do and/or have done it, why not the USA?Name one country of 300 million that has been able to maintain a socialist government over the long term without difficulty. By the way, how's that European Union working out for you?
Well, thank you. We currently have trouble with the mess you made of the international banking system (thanks a lot to your banks for the subprimes-stuffed derivatives) and with the funny guys speculating on sovereign debts, but nothing to lose sleep over.
I name too : Germany and France. Whatever you think, a 1 to 4 ratio is meaningless in terms of societal complexity. What works for 80 can work for 300, hands down.
Can you name a country of 300 million who has been able to maintain a purely capitalist society without sinking into oligarchy and cronyism?
It just doesn’t happen: people wait for the next election and vote again.That works in theory. In actual practice, our system leads to a choice between candidates who are remarkably similar. The one thing Obama (the promised messiah that he was supposed to be) has proven is that he is remarkably similar to Bush.
To my great sorrow, it's absolutely true.
I don't know how you can extricate yourself from that locked choice. A complete overhaul of the rules governing elections seems to be in order, with an emphasis on campaign costs and financing.
Such population moves between EU countries do happen, but on a very limited scale, and to seek jobs not for political reasons. Middle class employed people stay put.Jobs and politics are deeply related.
It's true in the sense that bad policies can lead to unemployment. And so? How does the hypothetical threat of people going elsewhere constitute a "restreint" on our governemnts?
Comrade Le Couard,
Why are you arguing with Citizen Duck in my thread?
I am invoking democratic centralism and am hereby ordering you to not argue you with Citizen Duck in my thread. There are plenty of other threads in which to argue with Citizen Duck. If you continue to argue with Citizen Duck in my thread, you will be brought up by the Control Commission of the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L) on charges of breach of discipline!
You are a valued member of the vanguard party, Comrade Le Couard. Don't make me expel you.
Comrade Le Couard,
Why are you arguing with Citizen Duck in my thread?
I am invoking democratic centralism and am hereby ordering you to not argue you with Citizen Duck in my thread. There are plenty of other threads in which to argue with Citizen Duck. If you continue to argue with Citizen Duck in my thread, you will be brought up by the Control Commission of the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L) on charges of breach of discipline!
You are a valued member of the vanguard party, Comrade Le Couard. Don't make me expel you.
Oh, f***, end of party... I was just beginning to have fun!
For my defense, may I say that I'm not REALLY arguing with comrade Duck. Because as we all know, nobody can, his main argument being that he knows better and that we are all living in a sociological metanarrative full of relatives truths, whatever that means for him (yes, I'm pulling a leg here). I just love the way he ignored the bothersome statistic (13% of immigrants both in USA AND in Germany) in my last post, for instance...
Where did Houston Derek went anyway? I thought he would like to join the party, as he was the one to lauch the discussion about german policies.
|
Shhhhhhh ! Comrade Kommissar Goblin is looking this way ! Do you really want to end up in a camp in Upper Michigan?
Ooops, look away, he is coming back !
<slinks away whistling, trying to get his best innocent look on his cherubic face while gazing at the lovely curls on his toes and crossing his fingers for luck>
Well my fear Communerd, it has been fun. I am hiding your thread, but I shall certainly see you in the Literary section.
One final thing: RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heehee!
*blink*
|
|
The Politics of Food!1!
Tonight's topic: Kraft dinner! Comfort food or bourgeois oppression pasta?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2008/08/28/food-insecurity-stud y.html
The Politics of Food!1!
Tonight's topic: Kraft dinner! Comfort food or bourgeois oppression pasta?http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2008/08/28/food-insecurity-stud y.html
<hides a hood behind his back and looks casual>
If you add melted cheese or maple syrup, you have got an element of folklore. For the love of all that is holy, do not add both!|
|
I'm here, lurking. I am pretty much a rational anarchist at heart. Make your rules, I don't care what kind of security blanket you need to feel good about yourselves. Compel people to your will with the threat of violence (the only way government can function, by the way).
I opt out. I do what I think is best for me, consequences be damned. And I've put my money where my mouth is in that regard.
Germany has a nice system as far as I can tell, and it seems to work for Germans. Would it work here? We'd have to have a sea change in American attitudes towards government to find out. Culturally we're rebels, not conformists, even though we've been losing that edge for a while now. Maybe in a couple of decades we'll be in a place to try German style social democracy full force, but it won't happen now.
Having said that, Germany still depends on the possibility of punishment to get people to comply. It's much harder there than it is here to just go live on a mountain someplace and leave the grid behind. It's still possible here to opt out, more or less, and not be bothered, if you stay very quiet and stay away from everyone.
This pamphlet by Marx's son-in-law means a lot to me this week. My employers wanted me to come in tomorrow, and I said, "Uh, no." They said come it at 9 on Sunday, and I said, "Uh, no, I'll be here at midnight."
And, Comrade Curtin, if you haven't already hidden my thread, may I propose a compromise: don't hide it, but just don't ever come in here. That way, you won't get frazzled, BUT, you will still get to experience the joy and wellness of being that comes with seeing that there are 12 new posts in Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread scrolling across the bottom of your page!
That always makes me smile.