spitx

  Third, public transportation is generally valued more highly here than
  in other places for a variety of reasons.

If various professionals employed by the state were paid in accordance of their value to the society (even if only to a certain slice of society), members of the armed forces would be centi-millionaires.

That line of reasoning is utter bunk.

Removed from everything in the post, it has to be said the piece is terribly composed.

Not as terrible as some of the other recent posts (and related comments) I've seen on HN; it is sufficiently terrible. Here's an example of a terribly composed comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968264

He doesn't sound like a native speaker and I know many who patronize HN aren't, but the terrible form and composition are inexcusable.

Please put some effort into your posts. Have a friend proof it for you. Don't hesitate to edit it post-submission if you find it unreadable, yourself. There's no shame in that.

Stand-alone technical prowess is not an excuse for poor writing skills.

Edit: Proving a point.

  As an Austrian, NATO was never there to protect us.
  America was admired for setting an example as a 
  great nation where people can live freely.

What, in the civilized lands of Stiegl, has ever threatened the free movement and assembly of people, at least since the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian empire? And what has prevented Austrians from immigrating to the shores of America, like the Germans, Swedes and the Dutch?

I'd really like to know.

(Very trace amounts of sarcasm deposited in this response.)

Let's not get overboard.

Europe (alongside EVERY nation that has a respectably digital-ready telecommunications network) spies on it's peoples.

It's almost a mark of a nation's jetting into the trillion dollar club.

America gets the lion share of the criticism because it has been bestowed on - for better or worse owing to its capacity for taking human toll (of its own citizenry) - the uneasy office of the global police order.

European critics should ask themselves which country constitutes the majority of NATO's standing forces.

Is it Spain? Germany? Scotland? France? Italy?

You can have your say when your countrymen submit themselves in (proportionally) larger numbers.

Until then, take a seat.

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrBO10n8V8

This has got to be

1) a decoy outfit whose entire purpose is meant to deflect criticism from China and Russia - who are in all likelihood the biggest receiving parties of American intelligence attention - which often complain about America's far-flung surveillance activities.

2) a conventional operation, by the NSA, involving "listening station" activities for the entire European region ( like at RAF Menwith Hill in the UK )that listens to chatter and helps thwart terrorist threats in conjunction with mainland intelligence agencies.

3) some other unknown listening operation that keeps tabs on primarily homegrown threats from militant Islamists and converts to Islam, in Germany.

a. CIA is said to have recruited Danish agent (and convert to Islam) Morten Storm to find a bride for radical anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Croatian Muslim convert 'Aminah' - born Irena Horek - was recruited on Facebook by Morten Storm who claims he worked with the CIA to infiltrate al-Qaeda and became a matchmaker to the terrorists. )

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/31/article-2255280-16...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/31/article-2255280-16...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/31/article-2255280-16...

b. The members of the Hamburg cell were the key operatives in the 9/11 attacks. Around 4.3 million Muslims live in Germany, one of the larger compositions in Europe (5.4% of the population) or in any Western nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_cell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Germany

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50137988n

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/world/middleeast/danes-wil...

Edit: Formatting

Perhaps its time to heed the advice of the illustrious Christine Lagarde:

  “Il faut cesser de penser et se retrousser les manches.”

  (Roughly translated: "We must stop thinking and roll up our sleeves.")

  In proposing a tax-cut law last week, Finance Minister Christine
  Lagarde bluntly advised the French people to abandon their 
  “old national habit.”

  “France is a country that thinks,” she told the National Assembly.
  “There is hardly an ideology that we haven’t turned into a theory.
   We have in our libraries enough to talk about for centuries to 
   come. This is why I would like to tell you: Enough thinking, 
   already. Roll up your sleeves.”

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/world/europe/22france.html...

  "And then there is France. In the realms of cultural, 
  diplomatic, linguistic or economic policies, the French
  have long and eloquently insisted on their nation's 
  "exceptionalism." Yet a new form of exceptionalism, 
  no less eloquent, though far more brutal, now burdens 
  them: since 2011, France has seen at least a dozen men
  and women who have either set, or tried to set, 
  themselves aflame.

  The cradle of the Enlightenment, France now glimpses 
  a very different light, one that makes visible the 
  darkness of its economic and social malaise.

  The series of self-immolations has ranged across the
  country, from Flanders in the north through the suburbs
  of Paris to the Pyrenees in the south. No less varied 
  are the workplaces to each of these suicides: a lycée
  teacher, a carpenter, a company manager. Moreover,
  there is a mix of class and ethnic backgrounds: among 
  the victims are so-called "français de souche" (white 
  and native born French) as well as foreign nationals
  who had lived for years in France.

  Beyond the static of differences, though, one can see 
  common and disconcerting themes. In all of these cases,
  the victim was either unemployed or employed in a 
  position whose pressures ultimately grew intolerable.
  In the town of Beziers, a mathematics teacher slightly
  more than a year ago set herself on fire in the 
  school's courtyard--an "act of desperation" that 
  investigators attributed to "professional reasons." 
  Last summer in the Parisian suburb of Mantes-la-Jolie,
  an unemployed man, learning his welfare benefits had
  come to an end, immolated himself outside the local 
  unemployment office. In 2011, a France-Telecom employee
  in the southern city of Orange set a match to his 
  gasoline-drench clothing in a parking lot near his 
  office building--one among several suicides at the 
  company since it began to lay off employees in its 
  effort to restructure."

Source:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/print/2013/03/self-...

Agreed.

It should have read:

  "The arc of human progress is an illusory one" 

or

  "The arc of human progress - as defined by the narrow parameters of decreasing
   number of recorded human conflicts and genocides, declining number of
   incurable devastating medical conditions, improving/degenerating overall
   environmental health of the planet etc - is an illusory one." 

or

as you put it

  "true human progress is illusory" (whatever the parameters that determine it)

However what cannot be denied is that "liberal humanism", as Gray puts it, has come to wield the "pervasive power" it has now, in large part due to the advancements made by the West in the fields of science, technology and medicine and not despite of those advancements.

It's hard to make a case for universal "liberal humanism" when your own people are succumbing to famines in the millions.

Eg: The Great Famine in Ireland (1845–1852).

So simply put

  1. Knowledge is an absolute necessary element for the overcoming of 
     "cultural backwardness, blindness and folly" and to advance 
     "to ever more elevated stages of enlightenment and 
     civilization" and thereby the progress of humans.
  2. Human knowledge is said to be limited.
  3. Ergo, human progress will always be stunted by the said natural 
     limit of knowledge.    
  4. Further: There is no necessary condition that prevents humans from 
     reverting to the ways of the past once that limit has been reached.

  Animals with highly developed brains never simply accept 
  their fates. After all, they understand   that if they 
  manipulate nature in certain ways, at least some parts 
  of their fate can be averted!

Your argument has the appearance of something that's badly contrived (or derived).

You may have not chanced on arguments surrounding your premise on "highly developed brains" and natural limits imposed on such brains owing to a multitude of things including encephalization quotient (if not exclusively that).

It's verging on the conceited to make such claims without at the very least mooting the points and counterpoints surrounding such assumptions.

The following is a decent one:

Argument for a finite upper limit to human knowledge

  1. The human brain consists of a finite number of particles
     and energy states.
  2. This matrix of particles and energy states is less than 
     what exists in the cosmos.

  Ergo: The human brain has insufficient capacity to contain 
  a matrix containing the total map of all the particles and 
  energy states that exist in the cosmos.

  Ergo: A human's knowledge is limited.

  Further: All of the humans that exist, or will ever exist, 
  will always comprise a subset of the cosmos; Ergo, the 
  collective knowledge of humanity is also limited.

Argument dismantling the aforementioned

  That isn't convincing. All you have shown is there is not 
  a one to one ratio of particles in a  human brain and the
  sum of the universe. This isn't an indication of epistemic
  limitation. Although, I agree we have epistemic  limitations.

If a natural upper limit does exist - that also stunts our ability to rise above certain petty disputes arising out of a set of very human instincts such as ego, vanity and self-preservation - then progress could indeed be an illusory concept.

Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?s=8e29f5dcbb9c8b27...

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?s=8e29f5dcbb9c8b27...

Edit: Additions

The areas of composite art you mention hardly have a fraction of the sweeping brushstroke of influence and the ability to impress upon society, certain mores and affectations that the more established forms of art (that you refer to in the last line) have.

It is by no means an exaggeration to say that most people who patronize art in cities and wealthy donors who lavish large sums on money on museums, opera venues, orchestras and various other ventures that promote art, probably have never heard of the crossover types you mention.

Hence it is fair to say that these newer art forms barely register in terms of their influence on the popular mood of the culture of a city much less a nation.

It is no secret that berating the ills of technology is Hollywood's favorite past time.

From Fritz Lang's Metropolis to Terminator to the recent Prometheus and a million flicks between them portray in no ambiguous terms the banes of unchecked technological advancements.

Ignore that for a moment.

The scuttling of technology, even when it could greatly aid and enable a better experience, can be seen in sports as well.

FIFA is a notorious luddite. They act as if the soccer gods will strike with lightning if they so much use an instant-replay.

The overlords at the French Open won't even touch Hawkeye with a ten foot pole. Players have to resort to pointing to where the ball left an impression on the clay to argue for a point that could decide their fate.

I only know of the NHL that embraces an uncommonly high amount of technology to make better ruling decisions. Every goal of every game is reviewed remotely in Toronto just to be sure. Offside calls and a host of other decisions are still handled by a couple of on-ice referees.

All said this technology-hating nonsense and the morons who advocate such superstitious dogma are everywhere.

I pray for the day when this bullshit will be called for what it really is - a form of a hate crime, an intolerance of reason and utility.

I'd love to pick up a book that deals with this issue: why and when painters - and more generally artists - have come to adopt this anti-technological outlook.

Was it a fear that the pervasiveness of technology would make their craft(s) obsolete?

This sort of thinking is rife even within artistic circles.

Artists whose medium is photography are like the ugly lepers of the visual art world.

I find this anti-technological bent in modern Western cultural life particularly unsettling.

Don't take what I'm saying to an extreme; I have nothing against consumable art in its many forms.

However I think the cultural life of cities in the West - in its various forms (art, theatre, cinema, classical music, architecture) are ruled by cohorts who wholly constitute the anti-technological fringe.

They live for abstraction and something about that makes them virulently anti-technological.

Suggest a book or essay that addresses this issue in great depth.

Perhaps I haven't followed you to a T.

What specific problems or arguments in philosophy are not easily illustratable, using plain language?

I do understand that some thoughts and experiences of the human order may not be easily captured or made intelligible by language.

I guess you could slot the experience of a color-blind person in that category. Especially in the past when testable apparatuses have not yet been developed to even diagnose that such a medical condition does indeed exist.

However I fail to understand why most philosophical arguments cannot be made intelligible to laymen.

René Descartes' "Brain In The Vat" argument is quite easily comprehendable.

It is my opinion (and very often found to be true) that most obtuse arguments (philosophical or otherwise) are indeed "highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand."

In fact I think PG is being charitable. I wonder if the "highly technical stuff" that doesn't lend itself to the peer review of more than a handful of scholars is even valid and credible in the first place.

I know that I am going down the slippery slope of If-I-and-most-non-scholarly-people-of-above-average-intelligence-cannot-grasp-an-argument-then-it-must-be-patently-invalid-and-thus-hogwash.

However at times I wonder if it is indeed possible that the scholarship of even a fraction of the world's most esteemed scholars (in various fields) actually has some validity and truth value associated with it.

Since nearly all of it is produced in academia and thus only subjected to the scrutiny of academic peers.

I wonder if it is just a nice formal product of a large volume of essentially meaningless cogitation that passed the consensus of equally unworthy peers.

This has to be true especially in the more arcane disciplines where there is little oversight or cross-disciplinary activity.

I'm sure there is a name for this phenomenon. Something on the lines of "legitimacy by consensus".

This is Bill Clinton speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative - whose spouse, from all accounts, will most likely be running for the office of President in 2016 - on NSA Security Leaks and Snowden.

  "They (NSA) have prevented a very large number of harmful actions"

  "I don't see any alternative to trying to track all these groups 
  around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations
  of life in America and probably kill a lot of people. I am not 
  persuaded that they (NSA) have done more harm than good"

In an increasingly uncertain world, the opinion among most American leaders and figureheads, on either side of the aisle, about the need for increased domestic and international surveillance, has already calcified.

For better or worse, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it. The debate being precipitated here and in mainstream media is largely symbolic.

It is time for privacy advocates to leave their dens and organize formally ( as in politically ) to advance their agendas. Washington only understands political clout whether it is a PAC or a lobby group.

Grassroots organizations will always go the way of Occupy Wall Street without formal leadership and a political consensus - lots of Zuccotti drama and nothing to show for it except for your obligatory iconic pepper spray photo.

You can mobilize politically in formal ways or bask in the warm glow of all the emotional outrage being voiced now and get your iconic photo spread.

Guess what?

The riots in Brazil have one too:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5/...

and nothing will come off those riots either. Wanna wager a candy bar?

Let's check back 3 months from now and I bet things will have gone back to where they were without any concrete action taken and the crowds going back to their usual quotidian lives.

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs

This is Bill Clinton - whose spouse, from all accounts, will most likely be running for the office of President in 2016 - on NSA Security Leaks and Snowden.

"I don't see any alternative to trying to track all these groups around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations of life in America and probably kill a lot of people. I am not persuaded that they (NSA) have done more harm than good"

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs

What did you expect here, other than being down-voted, for making some sense or offering an alternate view of things?

You are speaking to the "Me Me Me Generation" as Joel Stein puts it.

"Lazy, entitled, selfish and shallow."

Snowden is the poster child for this generation.

"A narcissistic young man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us", as Bob Schieffer called him.

The only thing that separates this generation of whistle blowers, if they were to take after Snowden, from the previous ones would be their insincerity of purpose and a distinct lack of selflessness.

Instead of being lauded for standing firm and facing consequences they will be known for their penchant for fleeing and bolting to foreign lands that they find hospitable to their ill-thought-out missions.

Character and how its reflected doesn't change with the times.

On occasion, history fails to take note of certain heroes.

However it also tells us that cowards have never brought about ground swells or changed human events.

Source:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2143001,00....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5-r6mw6nQ

I was referring to the fact that had they wanted they could have scuttled his efforts even before he arranged to speak to Greenwald and Poitras.

If the NSA or BAH were to submit that they were unaware of Snowden's whereabouts or movements when he arranged these interviews, they would in all likeliness be resorting to feigning ignorance.

It's the height of silliness to suggest they were clueless about Snowden's motives before his junket began.

Source:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/10/qa_with_laura_poitras_the_wo...

Let's not get cute here.

If the United States wanted him extracted (on the way to Hong Kong) or worse, killed during his sojourn in HK, Snowden would have already faced a fate several orders worse than Alexander V. Litvinenko.

It isn't a huge tab for the U.S. to foot in the way of deploying deep cover teams to "take care" of Snowden - for what had been alleged to be the biggest U.S. intelligence leak in a generation - in the least suspicion-arousing manner long before Greenwald ever published his story.

For a nation that outspends the next ten defense budgets combined (even with the off late sequestration cuts accounted for) this is not much of a task.

The top brass could have taken care of this in a manner several orders more believable than the 2006 killing of Alexander V. Litvinenko in which the uber rare, and thus strictly available to only government bodies, Polonium-210 was used.

They could have made it seem like a forlorn affair of unrequited love with that dancer-acrobat girlfriend of his.

It is acutely nonsensical to assume that movements of sensitive personnel, like Snowden, are not tracked, especially to far-flung locations like HK given that he is not a field operative of any kind.

The NSA and other assorted intelligence/military organizations probably have a protocol for dealing with these things,in conjunction with the Justice department.

If they didn't before, Manning's case would have elicited the need for one.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/europe/03russian.htm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinen...

http://nation.time.com/2012/09/25/comparing-defense-budgets-...

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2009/06/polonium-210-and...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/this-might-be-the-girlfriend-ed...

I have heard this sentiment echoed by others - several industry insiders included - before.

If this is indeed true that the sales and marketing honchos are exclusively running large tracts of key operations, aren't the resulting missteps going to be deleterious to Mark's record as the chief?

This sentiment was echoed by Dalton Caldwell about Facebook's "M&A" team, last year:

  I am not sure if this bubbled up to you, Mark, but after this all happened I
  directly communicated my feedback regarding just how unhappy I was with this
  situation to one of your executives. The executive apologized and said he would
  take my feedback under consideration.

  Mark, I know for a fact that my experience was not an isolated incident. Several
  other startup founders & Facebook employees have told me that what I experienced
  was part of a systematic M&A “formula”. Your team doesn’t seem to understand 
  that being “good negotiators” vs implying that you will destroy someone’s 
  business built   on your “open platform” are not the same thing. I know all 
  about intimidation-based negotiation tactics: I experienced them for years 
  while dealing with the music industry. Bad-faith negotiations are inexcusable,
  and I didn’t want to believe your   company would stoop this low. My mistake. 

Does Mark maintain control of all of the operations or has he got petty feudal lords running various units and operations?

Source:

http://daltoncaldwell.com/dear-mark-zuckerberg

Edit: Cleanup

President Obama on the NSA when interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlThTTJgKYo&t=26m40s

(Link takes you to about the 26th minute mark where the issue is mooted)

http://www.charlierose.com/

(Unwieldy video player)

I do not wish (or expect) for Snowden to be sentenced with capital punishment if he were to turn himself in.

However any attorney or advocacy organization will find it extremely arduous to prove that he did this in good faith.

Fleeing only makes it worse.

It is universally considered a symptom of insincerity.

An insincerity of mission and an insincerity of motive.

It will be an entirely unconvincing case even if it were made in the court of public opinion much less closed-door hearings.

Had he even made the slightest of effort to reach out (to whatever institution, individual or group that he trusted, based in the United States) he would have left an indelible impression on privacy advocates, news organizations and the larger public, even if his criminal fate eventually remained unmitigated, by that act of outreach.

What about Bradley Manning?

That's as pristinely analogous a case as it gets to Snowden's, with diametrically opposed approaches the actors took to pursue their causes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bradley_Mannin...

Did Daniel Ellsberg bolt for a communist nation, sympathetic to his views after releasing the Pentagon papers?

No, he turned himself in.

Snowden wants all the glory and none of the bruises.

If that doesn't demonstrate a lack of selflessness, what does?

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_mistr...

CBS' Bob Schieffer on Snowden's junket:

  "For one thing, I don't remember Martin Luther King, Jr., 
  or Rosa Parks running off and hiding in China. The people 
  who ran the civil-rights movement were willing to break
  the law and suffer the consequences."

  "That's a little different than putting the nation's
  security at risk and running away."

  "What I see in Edward Snowden is just a narcissistic young
  man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us"

   "I don't know what he is beyond that. But he is no hero.
   If he has a point — which I'm not sure he does — he
   would help his cause by voluntarily coming home to face
   the consequences."

Source:

Schieffer to Snowden: Come home, face the consequences

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5-r6mw6nQ

Why is the slant of the source relevant?

This is the opinion of one person.

I tabled it to invite dissenting voices to offer sensible and rational critiques of the premise not petty and bitter ideologues who want to silence all dissonant viewpoints even when they may have more than a shred of truth value.

There are plenty of such people on sites like Gawker.

I thought this place was a platform for sensible and intellectually upright discussion.

You needn't struggle so much to find parallels, if you were to even glance cursorily.

While the general validity and the degree to which this writer's experience is shared by others can certainly be debated (which is the reason I tabled it in the first place), the fact that there are strong parallels cannot be contested.

The agents and parties affected in the two settings, London and S.F., could indeed be different. Nonetheless, the theme remains the same.

kryten:

Sounds like London, UK where I currently reside with three children...

Does your experience of life in London in recent years (since around late nineties) reflect that of this writer? I think this is one of the few writers (on the topic) I've found balanced and non-alarmist. That's the reason I've used her piece to moot a point that has been posited by many others in a more judgmental and accusative tone. So I ask, is this what London increasingly feels like for secular, middle-income families and individuals?

  "Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim,
  with the majority of them young families. That is
  not, in reality, a great number. But because so many Muslims
  increasingly insist on emphasising their separateness, 
  it feels as if they have taken over; my female neighbours 
  flap past in full niqab, some so heavily veiled that I can’t
  see their eyes. I’ve made an effort to communicate by smiling
  deliberately at the ones I thought I was seeing out and about
  regularly, but this didn’t lead to conversation because they
  never look me in the face.

  I recently went to the plainly named “Curtain Shop” and asked
  if they would put some up for me. Inside were a lot of 
  elderly Muslim men. I was told that they don’t do that kind 
  of work, and was back on the pavement within a few moments.
  I felt sure I had suffered discrimination and was bewildered
  as I had been there previously when the Muslim owners had 
  been very friendly. Things have changed. I am living in a 
  place where I am a stranger.

  I was brought up in a village in Staffordshire, and although
  I have been in London for a quarter of a century I have kept
  the habit of chatting to shopkeepers and neighbours, despite
  it not being the done thing in metropolitan life. Nowadays,
  though, most of the tills in my local shops are manned by 
  young Muslim men who mutter into their mobiles as they are
  serving. They have no interest in talking to me and rarely 
  meet my gaze. I find this situation dismal. I miss banter, 
  the hail fellow, well met chat about the weather, or what 
  was on TV last night."

  "In the Nineties, when I arrived, this part of Acton was a
  traditional working-class area. Now there is no trace of 
  any kind of community – that word so cherished by the Left.
  Instead it has been transformed into a giant transit camp 
  and is home to no one. The scale of immigration over recent
  years has created communities throughout London that never 
  need to – or want to – interact with outsiders.

  It wasn’t always the case: since the 1890s thousands of 
  Jewish, Irish, Afro-Caribbean, Asian and Chinese workers, 
  among others, have arrived in the capital, often displacing
  the indigenous population. Yes, there was hateful overt 
  racism and discrimination, I’m not denying that. But, 
  over time, I believe we settled down into a happy mix of
  incorporation and shared aspiration, with disparate 
  peoples walking the same pavements but returning to 
  very different homes – something the Americans call
  “sundown segregation”.

  But now, despite the wishful thinking of multiculturalists,
  wilful segregation by immigrants is increasingly echoed by
  the white population – the rate of white flight from our 
  cities is soaring. According to the Office for National 
  Statistics, 600,000 white Britons have left London in the
  past 10 years. The latest census data shows the breakdown
  in telling detail: some London boroughs have lost a quarter
  of their population of white, British people. The number in
  Redbridge, north London, for example, has fallen by 40,844
  (to 96,253) in this period, while the total population has
  risen by more than 40,335 to 278,970. It isn’t only London
  boroughs. The market town of Wokingham in Berkshire has 
  lost nearly 5 per cent of its white British population.
  I suspect that many white people in London and the Home 
  Counties now move house on the basis of ethnicity, 
  especially if they have children. Estate agents don’t 
  advertise this self-segregation, of course. Instead there
  are polite codes for that kind of thing, such as the mention
  of “a good school”, which I believe is code for “mainly 
  white English”. Not surprising when you learn that nearly
  one million pupils do not have English as a first language. 

  I, too, have decided to leave my area, following in the
  footsteps of so many of my neighbours. I don’t really want 
  to go. I worked long and hard to get to London, to find a 
  good job and buy a home and I’d like to stay here. But I’m
  a stranger on these streets and all the “good” areas, with 
  safe streets, nice housing and pleasant cafés, are beyond 
  my reach. I see London turning into a place almost 
  exclusively for poor immigrants and the very rich.
  It’s sad that I am moving not for a positive reason, but to
  escape something. I wonder whether I’ll tell the truth, if 
  I’m asked. I can’t pretend that I’m worried about local 
  schools, so perhaps I’ll say it’s for the chance of a 
  conversation over the garden fence. But really I no longer 
  need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant 
  racists of us all."

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I...

Edit: Cleanup

The graphic clearly refers to Americans killed in Iraq.

Source:

http://hbo.vice.com/episode-nine/ep-9-seg-1/infographic

Singapore has only recently relaxed (read: suspended) the imposition of mandatory capital punishment for drug trafficking charges.

While Western governments and media have long criticized Singapore's draconian laws and its low tolerance for all crime, it has to be said that the prosperous city-state has been highly effective at warding off the ill effects of lax criminal jurisprudence and enforcement that typify, with the exception of an absurdly oil-rich Norway or two, almost all developed Western societies.

It pays to give our approach to crime and sentencing another look before we blissfully laud ourselves for 'upholding' some imaginary ethos governing human dignity at the cost of rampant societal maladies that continue to plague us, while in reality, doing a sloppy job at both.

Case in point:

Number of deaths in Iraq over the period of 2003-11 : 4,422

Number of murders in Chicago,Ill. over the same period : 4,265

Source(s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNIT9Dn_Rjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaDR2kLI0m0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_99LydvXqDk

https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=138...

http://hbo.vice.com/episode-nine/ep-9-seg-1

The rabid far-left elements of Northern Europe and America are not content limiting nuclear power proliferation just in the developed world.

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant

Operating capacity: 6800 MW

Maximum capacity: 9200 MW

  In March 2012, police said they had arrested nearly 
  200 anti-nuclear protesters objecting resumption  
  of work of building one of two 1 GW reactors, a day
  after the local government restarted work on the
  project.

  There have also been rallies and protests in favour
  of commissioning this nuclear power plant.
 
  *On, 24 February 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
  blamed American and Scandivanian NGOs for
  fueling protests at the power plant. Three of the 
  NGOs were later found to have used foreign funds
  received for social and religious purposes to fuel 
  the protests, violating foreign exchange regulatory
  rules. The PM also blamed these NGOs for opposing 
  genetically modified foods and the use of
  biotechnology to increase food production in the 
  country.*

Source(s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_XwANnrxvo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Movement_Against_Nuc...

Not one of the nuclear power stations currently planned or under construction are in the Western world (unless you count Slovakia).

Not even the traditionally very nuclear-friendly France.

Is this just a coincidence or is it the handiwork of some hyper-sensitive faction of the environmental lobby with bottomless coffers to buy political clout across whole continents?

  This table lists stations under construction or operational stations with under-construction reactors and current net
  capacity under 1,000 MW. Planned connection column indicate connection of first reactor, not thus whole capacity.

  Power station	                 Cap(MW)Start   Conn	Country	Location
  Braka Nuclear Power Plant	  1,340	2012	2017	 UAE	23°59′6″N 52°17′1″E
  Belyarsk-4 (BN-800)	          1,364	2006	2014	 Russia	56°50′30″N 61°19′21″E
  Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant  1,220	2010	2014	 China	19°25′23″N 108°48′45″E
  Fangchenggang Nuclear Power 	  2,000	2010	2015	 China	21°40′36″N 108°33′38″E
  Fangjiashan Nuclear Power Plant 2,000	2008	2013	 China	30°26′29″N 120°56′30″E
  Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant	  3,000	2008	2013	 China	25°26′39″N 119°26′46″E
  Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant	  2,000	2009	2014	 China	36°42′33″N 121°22′54″E
  Hongyanhe Nuclear Power Plant	  4,000	2007	2013	 China	39°47′52″N 121°28′19″E
  Kakrapar-3	                  1,664	2010	2015	 India	21°14′19″N 73°21′00″E
  Kaliningrad Nuclear Power Plant 1,082	2012	2017	 Russia	54°56′20″N 22°09′40″E
  Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant 1,834	2002	2013	 India	8°10′06″N 77°42′45″E
  Leningrad Nuclear Power II	  2,170	2008	2013	 Russia	59°49′50″N 29°3′26″E
  Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant	  2,600	1999	2013	 Taiwan	25°02′19″N 121°55′27″E
  Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant	  1,654	1987	2015	 Slovak	48°15′50″N 18°27′25″E
  Novovoronezh Nuclear II  	  2,228	2008	2013	 Russia	59°49′50″N 29°3′26″E
  Ōma Nuclear Power Plant	  1,325	2010	2014	 Japan	41°30′35″N 140°54′37″E
  Sanmen Nuclear Power Station	  2,000	2009	2013	 China	29°06′04″N 121°38′23″E
  Shin Ulchin Nuclear Power Plant 1,340	2012	2017	 SKorea	37°05′34″N 129°23′01″E
  Shin Wolseong Nuclear Plant	  1,920	2007	2013	 SKorea	35°43′20″N 129°28′44″E
  Taishan Nuclear Power Plant	  3,400	2009	2013	 China	21°54′34″N 112°58′45″E
  Yangjiang Nuclear Power Plant	  3,000	2008	2013	 China	21°42′35″N 112°15′38″E

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations#...

Edit: Formatting