Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Law of Attraction
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Law of Attraction  (Read 84306 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #450 on: December 08, 2009, 12:17:04 AM »

C-SPAN's Book TV recently had this talk, by the author, Barbara Ehrenreich, about her book Bright-Sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America.

It's very much worth watching.

I heard an interview with her on the radio the other day, and thought "She's definitely onto something."  There's also an article about her book in the most recent issue of Reason....they don't seem to have posted it on their site yet, though. 
Logged

FTL_Mark

  • I'm a Moderator now, but I don't want to hear your whining!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #451 on: December 08, 2009, 12:34:56 AM »

C-SPAN's Book TV recently had this talk, by the author, Barbara Ehrenreich, about her book Bright-Sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America.

It's very much worth watching.

I heard an interview with her on the radio the other day, and thought "She's definitely onto something."  There's also an article about her book in the most recent issue of Reason....they don't seem to have posted it on their site yet, though. 

If you can get some contact info for me I will have her on my interview show. Send it to my email, pls. Mark@freetalklive.com
Logged
No one has conjectured that I could quite possibly be a Libertarian posing as an Anarchist trying to pretend to still be a Libertarian; or what I like to call an Anarcho-Hustler.

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #452 on: December 08, 2009, 12:38:56 AM »

When is Mark gonna interview me?
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #453 on: December 08, 2009, 01:09:51 AM »

If you can get some contact info for me I will have her on my interview show. Send it to my email, pls. Mark@freetalklive.com

Done.

She appeared on the Daily Show recently....the video can be seen here.
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #454 on: December 08, 2009, 06:12:53 AM »

If you can get some contact info for me I will have her on my interview show. Send it to my email, pls. Mark@freetalklive.com

Done.

She appeared on the Daily Show recently....the video can be seen here.
She might be on to something, but anyone who appears on Democracy Now! is probably a jackass.  I watched the youtube clip.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #455 on: December 08, 2009, 07:51:06 AM »

If you can get some contact info for me I will have her on my interview show. Send it to my email, pls. Mark@freetalklive.com

Done.

She appeared on the Daily Show recently....the video can be seen here.
She might be on to something, but anyone who appears on Democracy Now! is probably a jackass.  I watched the youtube clip.

Oh, she's definitely a jackass.  She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.  In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is.  Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard.  She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc.  I hate that book with a passion.  I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
Logged

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #456 on: December 08, 2009, 09:03:27 AM »

C-SPAN's Book TV recently had this talk, by the author, Barbara Ehrenreich, about her book Bright-Sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America.

It's very much worth watching.

Delusion is dangerous, huh?  Maybe that's true for her...
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" —Rillion

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #457 on: December 08, 2009, 12:00:21 PM »

Oh, she's definitely a jackass.  She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.  In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is.  Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard.  She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc.  I hate that book with a passion.  I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.

Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup.  Isn't that all true? 
Logged

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #458 on: December 08, 2009, 03:13:59 PM »

Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup.  Isn't that all true? 

Yeah, it's terrible not to have money. Which is why it's a good idea to acquire job skills and some means to earn a living. I get tired of people goofing off through school, dropping out, and then bitching that no one will hire them, or that they can't find work at less than minimum wage. I want to say, "Hey--you pissed away any chance you had when you ignored your education in favor of screwing around."

I have sympathy for those who, through not fault of their own, cannot make it. But, the reality is that most people end up right where they put themselves.
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #459 on: December 08, 2009, 09:53:34 PM »

Oh, she's definitely a jackass.  She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.  In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is.  Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard.  She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc.  I hate that book with a passion.  I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.

Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup.  Isn't that all true? 

I think you need to read the book.  She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure.  I have very little respect for that.  At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus.  As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior.  I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test.  It's very simple.
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #460 on: December 08, 2009, 10:01:14 PM »

Oh, she's definitely a jackass.  She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.  In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is.  Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard.  She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc.  I hate that book with a passion.  I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.

Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup.  Isn't that all true?  

I think you need to read the book.  She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure.  I have very little respect for that.  At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus.  As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior.  I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test.  It's very simple.

I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business.  If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening.  I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.)  It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it.  People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.

FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that.  You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.


Addendum: Added the last paragraph.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 10:04:09 PM by What's the frequency, Kenneth? »
Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #461 on: December 09, 2009, 07:52:14 PM »

Oh, she's definitely a jackass.  She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.  In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is.  Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard.  She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc.  I hate that book with a passion.  I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.

Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup.  Isn't that all true?  

I think you need to read the book.  She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure.  I have very little respect for that.  At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus.  As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior.  I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test.  It's very simple.

I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business.  If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening.  I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.)  It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it.  People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.

FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that.  You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.


Addendum: Added the last paragraph.

Sure, and I agree with you that the government is influencing these policies.  However, my point remains that you don't have any sort of right to work regardless of substances consumed.  I think an employer should, for example, have the right to test employees for pork consumption (if that was possible...maybe it is, who knows) and not hire people they found to have eaten pork.  Unfortunately that form of discrimination is illegal whereas discrimination against certain other substances is legal.

I also had to take a drug test to work at my current position.  Ironically, that was the first drug test I've ever had to take, and it's a white collar job.  Circuit City never drug tested me when I worked there in high school.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 07:53:57 PM by freeAgent »
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #462 on: December 10, 2009, 04:13:14 AM »

Oh, she's definitely a jackass.  She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.  In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is.  Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard.  She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc.  I hate that book with a passion.  I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.

Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup.  Isn't that all true?  

I think you need to read the book.  She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure.  I have very little respect for that.  At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus.  As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior.  I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test.  It's very simple.

I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business.  If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening.  I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.)  It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it.  People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.

FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that.  You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.


Addendum: Added the last paragraph.

Sure, and I agree with you that the government is influencing these policies.  However, my point remains that you don't have any sort of right to work regardless of substances consumed.  I think an employer should, for example, have the right to test employees for pork consumption (if that was possible...maybe it is, who knows) and not hire people they found to have eaten pork.  Unfortunately that form of discrimination is illegal whereas discrimination against certain other substances is legal.

I also had to take a drug test to work at my current position.  Ironically, that was the first drug test I've ever had to take, and it's a white collar job.  Circuit City never drug tested me when I worked there in high school.

You've got a fine straw man argument there.  I didn't say I had a "right to work," etc.  I think I was very clear that the government is monkeying with the rules.  Employers should be free to hire with the rules THEY please.
Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #463 on: December 10, 2009, 09:13:44 AM »

Oh, she's definitely a jackass.  She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.  In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is.  Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard.  She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc.  I hate that book with a passion.  I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.

Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup.  Isn't that all true? 

I think you need to read the book.  She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure.  I have very little respect for that.  At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus.  As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior.  I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test.  It's very simple.

I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business.  If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening.  I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.)  It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it.  People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.

FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that.  You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.


Addendum: Added the last paragraph.

Sure, and I agree with you that the government is influencing these policies.  However, my point remains that you don't have any sort of right to work regardless of substances consumed.  I think an employer should, for example, have the right to test employees for pork consumption (if that was possible...maybe it is, who knows) and not hire people they found to have eaten pork.  Unfortunately that form of discrimination is illegal whereas discrimination against certain other substances is legal.

I also had to take a drug test to work at my current position.  Ironically, that was the first drug test I've ever had to take, and it's a white collar job.  Circuit City never drug tested me when I worked there in high school.

You've got a fine straw man argument there.  I didn't say I had a "right to work," etc.  I think I was very clear that the government is monkeying with the rules.  Employers should be free to hire with the rules THEY please.

You said you disagreed with my position, which is that employers should be able to hire whomever they like for whatever reasons they like (and vice versa).  There is no value judgment there about the goodness of drug testing.  I'm not sure why you disagreed with my position, as you appear to hold exactly the same position as I do.
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #464 on: December 10, 2009, 11:08:15 AM »

Oh, she's definitely a jackass.  She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.  In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is.  Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard.  She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc.  I hate that book with a passion.  I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.

Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup.  Isn't that all true? 

I think you need to read the book.  She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure.  I have very little respect for that.  At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus.  As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior.  I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test.  It's very simple.

I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business.  If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening.  I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.)  It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it.  People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.

FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that.  You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.


Addendum: Added the last paragraph.

Sure, and I agree with you that the government is influencing these policies.  However, my point remains that you don't have any sort of right to work regardless of substances consumed.  I think an employer should, for example, have the right to test employees for pork consumption (if that was possible...maybe it is, who knows) and not hire people they found to have eaten pork.  Unfortunately that form of discrimination is illegal whereas discrimination against certain other substances is legal.

I also had to take a drug test to work at my current position.  Ironically, that was the first drug test I've ever had to take, and it's a white collar job.  Circuit City never drug tested me when I worked there in high school.

Kinda hard when the government is fucking with the rules...and it's like a month...and tell that to someone who uses it for pain.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Law of Attraction

// ]]>

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 32 queries.