Want to state up-front, I am a dual citizen: an EU member and the US, and I live in the US. So I hope this gives my view some credibility as being grounded in the dual perspective.
The sentiment we're seeing in this story/comments and thematically is EU's desire to distance from the US - sure in infrastructure - but more so in identity. Which on the high-level I think is a great goal (ie, Europe should have European identity) but is incredibly risky and I am not sure is well thought out, though I could be wrong.
We can say that since 1950s the US and Europe had a familial relationship with the US being a bit of the parent despite being younger. That manifested in everything from protection (US bases in Europe, NATO), money flow, and culture flow. Since the 1950s, America did not become more European but Europe became more American.
Today we're in the adolescent stage of this familial relationship - Europe wants to move out of the house and perhaps even pay for its own cell-phone plan and that could be wonderful because if that leads to a legitimately stronger and more robust Europe, that's great.
But there's risk. Sometimes when the adolescent moves out of the house, they blossom into the fully manifested version of themselves. Other times they fall in with a bad crowd or fail to deal with their internal problems - and whither. It's easy to tell daddy-US to fuck off, it's much harder to not slide into the clutches of Russia and China in the next decade or two, or to deal with the internal demographic crisis.
What worries me for Europe is that it is trying to "distance" more than its trying to "grow." I don't hear people talk about a Europe that's strong, that leads, that innovates - in other words, the motivation is still about the US (just in a negative sense) not about Europe itself and that's not a good sign.
I still don't sense a true vibe of resurgence coming out of my native continent. Difficult problems you've always had tend to come to a head once you actually move out of your parents house. And while it's great (or at least cute) that you can switch to a European e-mail provider that's very far from what it actually takes to survive and thrive as a country in the long run. Hope it pans out.
You might be right but you are missing a lot of nuance here. For instance, yes, Italy is not thinking about growth, true. But Poland? Poland is all about growth, they just made the list of the richest 20 countries in the world.
The real problem here is that EU as an economic block is much less integrated than people think. Pensions? Not integrated. Health insurance? Partially integrated. Exit taxes? A complete mess. Languages? Try speaking English or German or French in Spain. Etc.
EU has demonstrated that you can have local identities (I feel more Neapolitan than "Italian", for instance) and one economic block. Unfortunately, the economic block integration is not as deep as you might expect.
This is not true on just so many levels. Lots of people have mothers not worthy of the name. I don't know exactly what fatherhood being a theory and motherhood being a fact means but I struggle to find any that isn't offensive to fathers.
O'Rourke was a conservative satirist (back when that could even be a thing), was semi-famous for his long term appearances on NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and was an advocate for gonzo journalism.
I take his quote to mean that motherhood is more difficult than fatherhood, especially back in the time he was active. The quote should, I feel, not be observed as a factual statement, but rather in the vein of his politically based humor. Largely, it was a simpler time.
I was a stay at home dad for a number of years and my observation is that kids never get over a bad relationship with their mother (also informed by knowing a number of adults with mothers that weren’t that good for them); any one can benefit from a good relationship with their father, but it’s a little more optional for the most kids. Ready to benefit from a supportive dad but ready to go it without that sort of helpfulness.
Why? What is special about being a mom? Are moms better than non moms? Lots of booze and a one night stand will create a mom, right? Not exactly a special feat
What's special - it's the person from whom most normal people have received the most love and care. It's the people who do the most work to keep humanity moving forward.
Are moms better than non moms - by and large yes.
I am sorry about what your life's story must have been like. Luckily I can't relate.
>It's the people who do the most work to keep humanity moving forward.
How do you define "moving forward"? Just having more people?
What a strange person you seem to be to think that moms are better than non moms simply because they are moms. You seem to have a child's view of the world
That's not really true. One would like it to be, but it's not. We are taught to worship biological mothers in society so that people keep having kids and thus feeding the tax collector, military machine, cleaning toilets etc. Take veterans for example- we put them on a pedestal so that more kids sign up to feed the meat grinder in the hope of having a "veteran" car sticker one day.
Hard disagree. Prison is the one you're not supposed to enjoy, jail is the place you use to keep people BEFORE they are judged.
A jail should limit the people held only as much as needed for the safety of the public and the handlers, but no punishment should be inflicted because no one's a convicted criminal (yet).
And in any case, prison should have a strong component of making the guilty person fit to live among others. A person that's been made to sit still staring at the wall for all their waking life for years is a person I definitely don't want as a neighbour, because there's no way they come out of that sane.
Society can be optimized for the law-abiding without being needlessly cruel.
Jail's job is to keep you around during your legal process. You're not supposed to enjoy jail but it's not supposed to be torture, either. Torture does not belong in a civilized society and especially should not be used against those who have not even been formally charged. much less convicted, of a crime.
Sorry, I think you mean abiding*. But laws are not some moral edicts handed down by god. They can and often are wrong or seriously misguided. Laws can and should be broken if and only if the agent at hand has a thorough understanding of why they are violating the law. Breaking a law and antisocial behavior are not necessarily equivalent.
This is not about enjoying or not enjoying jail. If you happen to live and work in Japan in a typical job, getting arrested and held within this process for 23 days almost certainly means you're getting fired because you essentially have no contact with the outside world and even if you manage to sneak a word out through your lawyer, most of the employment contracts have clauses to extent of automatic termination for both missing enough days and breaking moral character.
So even if the prosecution decides to drop your case, you're already fucked -- this is not how proper justice system should work.
While I agree jail doesn't need to be enjoyable, it should at least be humane and free from torture (psychological or physical).
Also remember that this article is about an experience before any charges were filed, before she'd seen a court room, before she even had the opportunity to prove her innocence or be convicted. "You are not supposed to be in jail" is a laughably naive way of looking at this type of situation.
If someone was arrested and their charges dropped, then what the government did was torture to a law abiding citizen and they should have a duty to compensate them appropriately.
Right, but there's a core conceit we use in the US (mostly) that you are innocent until you are proven guilty, and if you are wrongfully accused (as was evidently the case from the author), you should perhaps NOT be put into such a grim set of living conditions with essentially no rights.
In this case, the author evidently _was_ a law abiding person, so the optimization failed, senselessly, likely out of a systemic effort to strike enough fear in the populace to over-index towards avoiding the possibility of this sort of situation. (Much like Singapore caning people for minor offenses.)
Whether or not you agree that such draconian punishments or processes are effective or fair is a different discussion, but this person was LITERALLY not supposed to be in jail, so how fair is it that they were removed from polite society for over a month in such poor conditions and at considerable expense?
Wait until you will be thrown in jail and tortured for nothing. I have seen frw individuals like you who think "oh I obey the lay so this wouldn't happen to me".
