We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The Dutch model is already having major unintended consequences (or we hope they're unintended, cynics like me think they're quite intentional) of causing even more unemployment among people with poor education records, and lengthening unemployment periods for everyone.
The mandate to do volunteer work is being abused to force people into that, replacing previous employees who were on minimum (or up to medium level) wages. City councils and "charities" are especially guilty of this.
And at the high end of the job market, people with senior positions and/or long employment histories, people who get their jobs through headhunters and recruitment agencies working for them, the requirement to "prove" they've been actively looking for a job effectively means they can't get benefits, as those agencies and headhunters aren't going to turn over lists of companies they've offered their resumes to for consideration.
So many take to writing semi-bogus application letters to companies they know won't hire them just to meet the requirements. Hardly effective use of manpower resources for HR departments.
The plan works wonders to reduce expense and create an artificial slowdown in the rise of people on welfare. Artificial because many are simply for bogus reasons no longer listed for welfare when they should be, and others get shoved in and out of minimum wage and below minimum wage jobs that leave them permanently ineligible for welfare but instead have them in and out of unemployment checks which cost the government exactly the same.
Interesting theme running through the links today:
"Piers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil Robertson"
"Warmist fundamentalists ban dissent"
"Steyn: The Age of Intolerance - The forces of “tolerance” are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval."
We live among and are bullied by fascists and apparently most of us are either not bothered enough by it or or too timid to call it by its name much less wage a war of any kind against it.
I'm still trying to figure out what the duck guy said that was wrong or offensive. He said some truths more explicitly then you usually hear in public. But wat about it was wrong or mean spirited? I do hear the talking heads on TV who support his right to say it always preface their remark with some kind of a statement about how disgusting his comments were. There is zero doubt that they say that out of fear of the GLAAD hit squad. It is just more proof that you cannot say what you think if you are a public figure. How ironic that all the talking heads feel compelled to recite a disclaimer and then give their PC edited "opinion".
I wait the scientific study of the results when two conversationalists combine (1) encouraging others to talk about themselves and (2) parroting back what the other says. The resulting nonsense should be most academic.