Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in

stuff sinpped for trying to figure out who said what....



Yeah, for me too! 6 months of daily studying, one failed test,
and finally passing it. I think that my brain processes audio differently
than does those people with normal hearing.



I have not posted this point for a long time, as it provokes extreme
reactions from the pro code test lobby, but I can beat your 6 months.
It took me 22 years. Can you honestly wonder that I feel the way I do?

That is quite a long time. What was the reason that it took you 22
years? My reason was hearing problems, and a presumed mental processing
of sound deficit.



I don't know. My hearing is OK as far as I know.


What was the total study time?


Hard to say. I gave up completely over and over again, but I kept coming
back to it because I still wanted to get on HF.


If it wasn't a hazing process, then I'm a Dutchman

Don't take it personally! Some people learn Morse pretty easily, and
for some it is hard. Is it a hazing process if it is easy? Same goes
for the writtens. I can assure you that no group of Hams ever sat down
and said "Let's give this Coslo guy a rough time and make him learn
Morse code".




As a guy who can't "hear" people unless he can see the mouth of
the person speaking, I have just a little trouble figuring out the
problem with normal people for which the test is too hard to make it
worth getting a license.

But it is! Witness all those who are dropping off the ranks when
their license expires.

I predict the next tack of the NCI's is that not allowing the
codeless Techs HF access is why they aren't renewing their
license.


Certainly that must be true of some of them. What proportion, I
couldn't say.

That would certainly be an interesting outlook for a person. Let
us say
that a person became a ham in 1994, and has a combined intense
interest in operation below 30 MHz, and deep seated conviction against
Morse code testing, leading to refusal to take the Element 1 test.

Somehow doesn't ring true.


It was true enough of me, although I became a no-code ham in 1980 (in
the UK), more or less in defeat at having tried unsuccessfully to
learn Morse code ever since 1970, and passed a code test in 1992.

Getting a no-code licence was something I only did because I was
resigned to not getting the HF access that I wanted. It was a case of
thinking it was silly to stay off the air altogether just because I
couldn't get on HF, and it took me a long time, i.e. 10 years, to
grudgingly reach that conclusion.

Eventually passing the code test was helped by software that didn't
exist back in 1970, and the help of dear friends who took turns to
send slow CW transmissions several times a week that I knew were being
done mainly just for my benefit. Sure, others tuned in, but they
stopped sending them when I passed! I owe them a great deal.

Here's another interesting fact. I was teaching ham radio classes for
years before I passed the bleeping code!

If none of this rings true, I can assure that every word is the truth.

I believe you. And you didn't do what my hypothetical Technician
did
either. You kept with it an eventually passed



Eventually is right


As I said, all of this has been posted here before, but not recently.
My own history hasn't proved as effective as an argument as simply
pointing out that none of the arguments in favour of retaining code
testing hold as much water as a leaky bucket!

Except here is what I see as the difference. You had difficulties
with
Element one, and so did I. You want the test eliminated because you had
a hard time of it. I don't want the test removed just because of my
personal trouble with it.



Six months isn't that long though, is it?

Well, we'd have to adjust it to compare with your metric. My six months
was an intense study period after several fits and starts. I'd probably
have to adjust it to a couple years to compare with your time, as I
passed my GEneral ~ 2 years after I passed my Technician. While I was
studying for the Technician test, I also studied for Element 1.


We all have walls to climb in life. Some peoples walls are higher
than
others. I'll climb my own walls, and not try to change everyone elses
walls. YMMV.




I think that those who want to get rid of Element one testing
would be
better off to not try that argument.

That would be reminiscent of the old "Jump Frog" joke!


Except that the circumstances I describe never struck me as a joke.

I had enough problems that it was no joke to me either. But my
point
wasn't about the test specifically, it was the conclusion that people
reach regarding Morse code testing and the people coming into or
leaving the ARS.



I think it's probably true that having the no-code licence has increased
turnover, but we don't know why. Nobody has done any research on this
point.

Doubtless some have used a no-code licence as a substitute for a cellphone.
Doubtless some who had only a passing interest got a Tech licence and then
moved on, but we have to factor in that they had no exposure to HF. I'm
sure that others found that the 'consolation prize' of 50MHz and up wasn't
enough of a consolation to bother renewing.


Just so you know what the joke was about:



A scientist was conducting an experiment.

He took a frog, and sat it on the floor. Then he said:

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog jumps 6 feet.

The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with four legs jumps 6
feet*.

Then he cuts off one of the frog's legs...

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog jumps 4 feet.

The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with three legs jumps 4
feet*.

He cuts off another leg.

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog jumps 2 feet.

The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with two legs jumps 2
feet*.

Then he cuts off the third leg.

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

With a mighty struggle, the frog jumps 1 feet.

The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with 1 leg jumps 1
foot*.

Then he cuts off the final leg.

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog just sits there.

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog still just sits there.


The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with no legs is deaf.




Funny in a macabre sort of way, but hard to see the connection.

Back when I originally made the "Jump frog jump comment, it was about
people making an incorrect or bizzare conclusion from plain evidence.

Where people Might say that the No-Code technicians quit because The
had a license that didn't have Element 1 as a test requirement.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in
:



Alun L. Palmer wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote in
:

That is quite a long time. What was the reason that it took you
22
years? My reason was hearing problems, and a presumed mental
processing of sound deficit.


I don't know. My hearing is OK as far as I know.

What was the total study time?

Hard to say. I gave up completely over and over again, but I kept
coming back to it because I still wanted to get on HF.

I guess I really don't understand the mindset that allows one to give
up repeatedly at something one really wants. There were times that I
found the going tough, whether in trying to improve my morse speed or
in trying to learn some bit of theory but I never thought of quitting.


Uh, duh. Try because I couldn't do it. Hitting your head against a wall is
something one ought not to prolong endlessly. Sometimes it's better to go
away and do something else. I have realised from these kind of discussions
that you will never in a million years be able to comprehend just how hard
I found it, which is why I have avoided reposting this until now.

Here's another interesting fact. I was teaching ham radio classes
for years before I passed the bleeping code!

If none of this rings true, I can assure that every word is the
truth.

I believe you. And you didn't do what my hypothetical
Technician did
either. You kept with it an eventually passed


Eventually is right

But you did learn morse and pass the exam.


Oh yes, eventually. More than two decades to pass a code test to use HF
phone. That speaks for itself.


As I said, all of this has been posted here before, but not
recently. My own history hasn't proved as effective as an argument
as simply pointing out that none of the arguments in favour of
retaining code testing hold as much water as a leaky bucket!

Except here is what I see as the difference. You had
difficulties with
Element one, and so did I. You want the test eliminated because you
had a hard time of it. I don't want the test removed just because of
my personal trouble with it.


Six months isn't that long though, is it?

No, it really isn't.

We all have walls to climb in life. Some peoples walls are
higher than
others. I'll climb my own walls, and not try to change everyone
elses walls. YMMV.

Except that the circumstances I describe never struck me as a joke.

I had enough problems that it was no joke to me either. But my
point
wasn't about the test specifically, it was the conclusion that
people reach regarding Morse code testing and the people coming into
or leaving the ARS.


I think it's probably true that having the no-code licence has
increased turnover, but we don't know why. Nobody has done any
research on this point.

We can make some educated guesses.

Doubtless some have used a no-code licence as a substitute for a
cellphone. Doubtless some who had only a passing interest got a Tech
licence and then moved on, but we have to factor in that they had no
exposure to HF. I'm sure that others found that the 'consolation
prize' of 50MHz and up wasn't enough of a consolation to bother
renewing.

See! You did make some educated guesses.

...and those folks never gave a thought to tackling morse code at 5 wpm
to gain access to HF? They either had no curiousity about modes other
than FM on 2m repeaters, no curiousity about the 6m band and what it
offered or perhaps they couldn't muster enough enthusiasm to reach the
next plateau.

Dave K8MN

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

snip

Yeah, for me too! 6 months of daily studying,
one failed test,
and finally passing it. I think that my brain
processes audio
differently than does those people with normal hearing.

I have not posted this point for a long time, as it provokes
extreme
reactions from the pro code test lobby, but I can beat your 6
months.
It took me 22 years.

The most extreme reactions I see are those of a few anticode
types. Not
you,
Alun.

Can you honestly wonder that I feel the way I do?

Why did it take 22 years?


I'm not sure I really know

I gather that it was a lot of stops and starts, not 22 years of
constant effort.

And didn't you wind up passing the 20 wpm test?

Yes, that's true. Once you get over about 11-12 wpm it's not
much harder to get to 20

Which says to me it was more a matter of training method than
of the subject matter being "hard".

If it wasn't a hazing process, then I'm a Dutchman

Don't take it personally! Some people learn Morse pretty
easily, and for some it is hard. Is it a hazing process if
it
is easy? Same goes for the writtens.

Exactly!

Some people have a very hard time with math. Others with rote
memorization
of things like band edges.

I can assure you that no group of Hams ever sat down and said
"Let's
give this Coslo guy a rough time and make him learn Morse code".

As a guy who can't "hear" people unless he can see the
mouth
of
the person speaking, I have just a little trouble figuring out
the
problem with normal people for which the test is too hard to
make
it worth getting a license.

But it is! Witness all those who are dropping off the
ranks
when their license expires.

I predict the next tack of the NCI's is that not allowing
the
codeless Techs HF access is why they aren't renewing their
license.

Certainly that must be true of some of them. What proportion, I
couldn't say.

That would certainly be an interesting outlook for a
person.
Let us say
that a person became a ham in 1994, and has a combined intense
interest in operation below 30 MHz, and deep seated conviction
against Morse code testing, leading to refusal to take the
Element
1 test.

Somehow doesn't ring true.

It was true enough of me, although I became a no-code ham in 1980
(in
the UK), more or less in defeat at having tried unsuccessfully to
learn Morse code ever since 1970, and passed a code test in 1992.

Getting a no-code licence was something I only did because I was
resigned to not getting the HF access that I wanted. It was a case
of
thinking it was silly to stay off the air altogether just because
I
couldn't get on HF, and it took me a long time, i.e. 10 years, to
grudgingly reach that conclusion.

WHat were the tesrt requirements in the UK then? Here in the USA,
the
Novice
and Tech were 5 wpm in that time period.

12 wpm random groups with 96% copy

The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so
stringent.

The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes
- plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25
years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added.


Eventually passing the code test was helped by software that
didn't
exist back in 1970, and the help of dear friends who took turns to
send slow CW transmissions several times a week that I knew were
being
done mainly just for my benefit. Sure, others tuned in, but they
stopped sending them when I passed! I owe them a great deal.

Code training software for PCs was common here in EPA by the early
1980s. I still have old copies that run on DOS 3.2..

In the 1970s and 1980s, HF was full of non-amateur Morse operation.
And
the
now-changed treaty required code tests.

Here's another interesting fact. I was teaching ham radio classes
for
years before I passed the bleeping code!

If none of this rings true, I can assure that every word is the
truth.

But why did it take you so long, Alun?

What study methods did you use?

Early on, mainly just listening to slow Morse transmissions

And then what?

And if the test were only 5 wpm, and you had a choice of
1 minute solid copy or fill-in-the-blank with 70% being the
passing grade, how long would it have taken you to learn
enough to pass the test?


And note that here in the USA, full privileges have been available
with just a 5 wpm code test *since 1990*. Of course a medical
waiver
was needed before 2000, but all such a waiver required was a simple
letter from a medical doctor.

As I said, all of this has been posted here before, but not
recently.
My own history hasn't proved as effective as an argument as simply
pointing out that none of the arguments in favour of retaining
code
testing hold as much water as a leaky bucket!

Apply you anticodetest arguments to the written tests. Tell us why
most
of the written tests must remain. Heck, NCVEC is already trying to
trash the writtens even more...

Is it *really* so unreasonable to require Element 1? Particularly
considering the training aids and accomodations now available?

73 de Jim, N2EY

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't
know any just isn't fully qualified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

And there we have the crux of the situation, expressed in a simple
question.

If a person wants to operate phone, and that is it, then what do they
need to do that?

Nothing. The Citizen's Band is adequate proof of that

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up. Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT button.

But the problem is that the ARS isn't simply about operating phone. It
is about all kinds of operating modes. It is about all manner of
technical endeavors that we may engage in.

Operating phone is only one part of the hobby, and is arguably the
easiest part to do, as we have all learned to talk, so the prerequisites
have been met for most people.

The test requirements are there to give us some basic exposure to
elements of the hobby that are considered important by knowledgeable
people. While there may be argument about how well the tests function
for that purpose, there they are.

And what of people who only intend to operate phone QRP? The RF
exposure questions are kind of a waste of time for them. Satellite
operations? Just how many Hams do satellite operations? Why test on band
allocations, we can look them up in a book. Why should a person have to
do any basic electronics questions if they only want to buy a rig and
antenna and operate phone?

We can eventually argue away most of the test.

It is interesting that two people who have some similarities in
experience can draw such different conclusions from that experience.

Whereas you have chosen to be bitter about your experience (bitter may
be a bit strong of a word - at least you're not to happy about it)
regarding Morse code testing, and I actually ended up being pleased that
I was able to overcome my own physical limitations and pass the darn
thing. I don't advocate changing the rules because I had trouble with
one of them.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

snip


5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who
doesn't
know any just isn't fully qualified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think we can agree to differ on that last point.

Perhaps.

Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not that
it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur
radio, particularly on HF?

As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I
couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test.

Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test requirements.

5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the US,
but
until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in the
US, all
of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV, it would
only have
given me 10m at that time. I never took 5.

Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other
HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test and
a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently".

I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply
didn't
realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it would have
been as
hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it.

The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were.

I was operating above 30MHz
on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I
decided
to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think dropped one
question
in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for which I hadn't
looked
at the syllabus or question pool atall, and I passed that. Ditto the
Advanced, but they didn't have a spare Extra paper. None of this
really
surprised me, as the UK B licence had the same theory as the A
licence, and
I have an EE degree anyway, but it surprised the VEs.

Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew a
little radio and some regs.

Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer. Did
not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my longhand.
Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General back
then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until the
actual license arrived in the mail, though.

Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more
practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and
passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving.

Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?". Now
in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the writtens,
with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say No to
The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound up
with Advanced instead of General.

That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized
practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years old
and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades.

Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner
but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or
Advanced to even *try* the Extra.

This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to take
the
General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer software
and
slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months.

Bingo.

How long do you think it would have taken to get to 5 wpm, tested the
way the USA does?

Note that Mike got there
in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and
it took
me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and there's
no
problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the VEs sending
code on
2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge to teach me code. I
almost
passed 20, but I had to come back a couple of months later.

To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits and
dahs,
no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but that
means the
remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to copy complete
characters,
so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but on the other hand it's
pointless.

Not at all.

If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits and
dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice
that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway).

Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a
skill as a requirement for access to a particular part of the
spectrum,
when there's no requirement to use that skill anyway?

Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all who
pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment they
are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge?

5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all.

Why is it too much to ask?

Tradition? That's a
weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may be
CW,
but I can (and do) operate 100% phone .

And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less
output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power, 'phone
modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that knowledge
I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed since I
took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first place,
just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in
:



Alun L. Palmer wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote in
:

some snippage



I don't know if any of us geniuses have though about it,
but
lets say
in a country where a business can get successfully sued for a
woman not knowing that here hot coffee was hot, and burning
herself
when trying to hold the darn thing between her legs. (sorry
Phil, but
what if she simply ruined her dress because the coffee was
wet?-
negligent design of the cup?)


I wrote a lot of the stuff you are commenting on, Jim. It's a hazard
of
us not trimming threads!

Same points apply

The case centered around the fact that the coffee was *extremely*
and
unreasonably hot.

Ask 10 people, and you'll get ten different answers if that was the
question. I assume that anything in a styro cup is Hot, until I can
examine it.

But hot enough to give you 2nd degree burns?

So lets have a newbie ham that fires up his/her kilowatt
rig, and is half fried because no one told him not to touch
the wirey
thingies on the back of the box thingy. Ohh, I can see the
successful
lawsuits already!

So what?

There's no license required to operate houshold appliances, nor
power
tools, which can be extremely dangerous. There's no skills test to
pump your
own gasoline. Or to climb a ladder.

I've nailed myself with 50 watts, enough to produce a
painful burn and a cute little scar on the boo-boo finger.
Some dunce that
catches a ride on a thousand watts might just have a very
successful
lawsuit if we don't train them well.


Who are they going to sue?

The manufacturers of equipment, the VEC that administered the test.
Find
some deep pockets and sue, sue, sue.

Then we better just give up, because there's no test to use a microwave
oven or a table saw.

One of the most dangerous substances the average person handles is
gasoline, yet there's no test for how to deal with it.

As a little example of the mindset, you might recall an accident
along
I-80 last year, a few miles from my QTH. Huge horrible pileup, many
vehicles, many people killed, and a fiery mess that took a long time
to
clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was
traveling
at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the
families
of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a
good
safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?

And on what grounds, compared to other
electronic devices?

Most of my appliances have warnings on them of electric shock
potential,
or of cutting, burning, whatever dangers also. There is a reason why
they are there.

Same warnings are on modern ham gear, aren't they?

Nobody can be protected completely from a lawsuit. But if you are
sued,
you are well served to have forewarned potential litigation
adversaries
of the possible dangers of the devices they may use.

Couple of stickers on the TS-50 and done. No need for a test, right?

RF Safety should be the FIRST order of the day, and NO one
should be a Ham until they are tested for RF safety to the
ability to
handle full legal limit.

The reason for the RF safety questions is to prevent exposing
*others*
to a hazard.

And the FCC has determined that the RF safety requirements of the
Tech test are adequate for hams who use up to 1500 W power output
on
"meat-cooking frequencies".

They're the *expert agency*, not the VEs or VECs. Heck, NCVEC wants to
*lower* the written exams - too much math and regs, sez they.

Shall we revisit "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"? I wonder if Len
Anderson and Brian Burke have read that wonderful piece, and what they
think of it.

I recommend it to all. Tells ya what the next step is.

And those who think that limiting the finals voltage, or
some other weird thing is the answer, are advised to think
about things
such as Technician Hams operating under supervision. It only
takes a
second to drop a paper and reach behind a Rig. Less time than
the
control op can react. I want those Technicians to be exposed
to full
power safety requirements. Anything else is criminally
negligent.


But they are already tested on full-power requirements.

Yoiks! We're doing major time/subject shifting here, Jim! My
comments
several iterations of the thread ago were in relation to possible
changing of test requirements, ala the W5YI proposal, where the
newcomers are given a much simpler test, and things that I consider
critically important, such as not having your hobby kill ya, would be

dropped from the testing.

Not the W5YI proposal - trhe NCVEC proposal.


Everyone may disagree, but that's too bad.


73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1108745797.245365.147250
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1108665611.010471.49400
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:



But emulating Sweden is OK huh?

n3kip

w3rv



Sure, why not?

BINGO: There it is. Old Europe. Sez it all.

Not in your lifetime Alun.

'Bye.

w3rv



We have very different political views.

OBVIOUSLY.

I don't know how you would classify
yourself, but by European standards you are very far to the right
indeed,

I'm a centrist Republican a la Sen. Arlen Specter, a member of a
disapperaing breed. Ted Kennedy is a right-winger by Old Europe
standards. Welcome to America.

as by no stretch is Sweden a socialist country.

Blather. It's a country which uses it's outrageous taxes on it's few
monster "capitalist" smokestack industries to hand out socialist
entitlements to it's population on a scale unheard of in any other
country. Entitlments being the heart of socialism in all it's forms.
Sven the fender-hanger at the SAAB plant didn't "feel good" yesterday
so he stayed home and watched the tube. No problem, he got paid anyway
under Swedish law. SAAB plant payrolls are bloated by 20% percent per
unit out the door vs. the U.S & Japan because 20% of the SAAB workers
"call in sick" every day. Absolute fact. GM got stupid and bought SAAB
mostly to save the marque otherwise SAAB would have died years ago but
GM is now mulling a pullout to cut their losses. The outflow of capital
from Sweden to other countries has been appalling, check out the
numbers and why it's happening and what the Swedish government is doing
to stanch the bleeding.

I can no doubt go ten blocks around the compass from here in the
suburbs of Philadelphia and find more businesses with ten or fewer
employees than you'll find in all of Sweden. Why is that Alun?? Could
it be that Swedish socialist economics stifles entrepreneurial
capitalism which is the engine behind the astounding growth of the
U.S. economy for over two centuries? Of course it is.


As for myself, I used to be a card carrying member of the
Conservative and
Unionist Party in the UK, but I freely admit that I have drifted
leftwards
since then, very likely as a result of seeing at first hand the huge
social
inequalities in the USA.

Certainly there are social inequalities in the U.S. The original
Constitution plus it's Bill of Rights guarantees equality in all
elections and in all courts in this country and nothing more.
Translates into a system in which the fate of individuals depends on
what they freely choose to do or not do with their lives. Those who
choose to be slackers suffer the consequences they freely imposed on
themselves so of course we wind up with "social inequalities" galore.


By your leftist standards our system has too many freedoms.

If it's called being a socialist to think that the ordinary working
man
should be able to get medical care without courting bankruptcy, then
I
suppose that makes me a socialist, but if you actually look in a
dictionary, then you will see that I am not, and neither are the
Swedes.

See above.

socialism // n.
1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
advocates
that the community as a whole should own and control the means of
production, distribution, and exchange.

Oh**** . . the second coming of Cecil and his friggin' dictionaries . .
!

2 policy or practice based on this theory.
socialist n. & adj.
socialistic // adj.
socialistically // adv.
[French socialisme (as social)]

w3rv