I thought bike helmets were required for the same reason that they are required for mopeds and motorcycles: to prevent head injuries in case of an accident? Says she who bikes through downtown Helsinki twice a day, facing numerous dangerous situations with stupid tourists, idiotic taxi drivers, and dumbass pedestrians on a weekly basis.

I also thought that the box of the maternity package was there to hold the stuff in it, and its nifty use as a bed was discovered by chance by industrious parents in the 1950s. At least that’s what I’ve heard my whole life.

I guess I’m just another brainwashed Finn who is just oblivious to the truth. Show me the light, Phil!

It’s official, Phil is a nut.

Parents arent given box beds, but a pack of necessities to get parents to realise jut what all a baby needs. And rather than having a useless box, this box is useful as it can double up as a bed. That’s bloody well ingenious.

helmet’s are required because adults are too stupid for their own good. Just like seatbelt laws, speed limits or drink & driving laws.

wine isnt sold at a liquor store because we’re run by commies, you’re right there.

Wearing a helmet may prevent serious injuries which can cost a fortune to society. Sometimes there is common sense, but most of the warnings and restrictions are just overcaring.

I guess I’m just another brainwashed Finn who is just oblivious to the truth.

Yes, of course, bike helmets may help with an accident. And repeating, “Watch your step when exiting the metro” is there as well to prevent an accident.

helmet’s are required because adults are too stupid for their own good.

Exactly. That’s one of the major differences between the statists and liberals. Statists say, “YOU are too stupid to make decisions for yourself!” while Liberals say, “It’s your health, you’re an adult, make your own decision.”

Statists want you to wear a helmet, so they threaten you with fines or worse. Liberals awnt you to wear a helt, but they want you to do it voluntarily.

I’d say this is the biggest difference between liberals and statists, “Adults are too stupid for their own good.” You summed it up quite well Harri!

Wearing a helmet may prevent serious injuries which can cost a fortune to society.

Ahhhhh, yes. It might cost the welfare state money. Fuck your health, our tax money is more important. Let’s limit people’s freedom because we don’t have enough tax money.

[quote]Ahhhhh, yes. It might cost the welfare state money. Fuck your health, our tax money is more important. Let’s limit people’s freedom because we don’t have enough tax money.[/quote]

I prefer paying less taxes rather than pay for stupidity. We have high enough tax rates already.

And… Do you really think that safety belt regulations are for limiting your personal freedom?

And… Do you really think that safety belt regulations are for limiting your personal freedom?

Of course. Are you free to not wear a seatbelt? Yes or no? No, you’re not, the cops threaten you with a fine if you do. How is the cops threatening you by taking your money, not freedom?

Irregardless, I’m still wearing my seatbelt.

Okay, that last comment was full of double and triple negatives, but you get the point.

Biking helmets and security belts restrict your personal freedom because biking helmets squish your hairdo (or sideburns) and security belts crumple your clothes. And let’s not forget about life vests. They’re usually an ugly orange which does NOTHING to my complexion and they feel uncomfortable. Thank goodness I know how to swim.

Biking helmets and security belts restrict your personal freedom because

Bike helmet laws restrict your personal freedom because you are forbidden by law to wear a bike without a helmet. It endangers no one but yourself. And the states enforces these laws with threats.

- The “helmet law” was indeed a mistake. I’ve seen statistics and wearing a helmet prevents head injuries mostly in theory; I can’t remember the figures but it’s something like one or two people are “saved” by the helmet every second year. It’s like the “hands-free” law …
- Cold medicine is sold in apteekkis only because that’s how they make their money. If the privilege was taken away their would be very few apteekkis left outside city centres after a while. That’s how the argument goes at least.
- Wines are not sold outside Alkos because of certain communist parties like the Centre is against it.
- Parents are not given beds. And what’s that’s gotta do with security anyway.
-Bigger stores are not open on Sundays, it’s a holy day after all – and apparently less than 700 quadrad meters is holy enough so God won’t mind. And what’s that’s gotta do with security anyway.
- Too expensive cars is not a security issue … unless you mean that because of taxes people tend to drive too old and thus dangerous cars. Car taxes will go down fast in the near future, by the way, but, alas, the gasoline taxes are going to do the opposite.

Bike helmet laws restrict your personal freedom because you are forbidden by law to wear a bike without a helmet. It endangers no one but yourself. And the states enforces these laws with threats.

This is a very odd paragraph.

I very rarely wear my bike. If I am wearing my bike, you can take it as an odd fashion statement because I haven’t been able to find clothes for adult women in this land of glitzy dresses and stiletto heels.

Since when does wearing a helmet endanger me?

There are no fines if you are caught biking without a helmet. The police just slaps your wrist, they don’t even give warnings.

This is a very odd paragraph.

Hehe, you get the idea.

Hey, I heard that Swedes are now wearing helmets for nordic walking

Seriously Phil, it’s your money too. If some cyclist hits his head and becomes disabled and costs the state lots of money over his lifetime, then your healthcare benefits will suffer. It’s the same thing in the States; it doesn’t matter whether it’s financed privately or publicly.

But generally though, most of the things you mentioned are regulated by unions. It’s very simple: If the state gives-up control of alcohol, then state workers lose their jobs. It’s no different from Pennsylvania’s ‘state store’ system.

f some cyclist hits his head and becomes disabled and costs the state lots of money over his lifetime, then your healthcare benefits will suffer. It’s the same thing in the States; it doesn’t matter whether it’s financed privately or publicly.

Then there’s a million other dangerous activities we should ban because it might cost the state money.

It’s very simple: If the state gives-up control of alcohol, then state workers lose their jobs.

Exactly, it’s all about “security”. A nation of security junkies.

Every country has a few ridicilous laws but that is just unavoidable waste from democratic process. Once in a while stupid populists or right/left wing weirdos get their idiot proposal passed as new law.

I remember reading about Oxford or similar university rules. One student there found from old rule books that they must be served a pint during exam and professors of course rushed to the nearest bar to get those pints. Well, professors retaliated later on, they found from the same rule book that students must carry a sword during exam and fined them accordingly

At least in Finland cars don’t need the “Objects may be closer than they actually are” (or something) text in mirrors in order to protect people from their own stupidity. Are people in America dumber than here? I mean in Finland no one gets sued for not telling people their coffee might be hot. You can be as stupid as you are and it’s your personal problem. Most cautions are used just for convenience, not because they must be used (in fear of getting sued).

And about the package a mom gets when she has a child, it’s actually quite valuable and a way of supporting people to have more babies.

Are people in America dumber than here?

It’s all about lawsuits over in the states. Millionaire lawyers can convince a jury to believe anything, and hence new, ridiculous regulations are created.

C’mon people, you are hijacking the subject matter and twisting it to serve your needs, ( and I may add, seems like a very popular thing to do among Finns ). The question is whether the state is actually doing a disservice to the public by imposing rules in the name of protection. Alluding to the fact that there is rampant youth vandalism, I think a good solution is to find them employment to give them something else to do instead of causing trouble. So why in world do we have all these silly rules regarding shopping hours, minimum wage, liquor sales, etc.

Alluding to the fact that there is rampant youth vandalism, I think a good solution is to find them employment to give them something else to do instead of causing trouble.

More importantly, 10% of Finns are below the poverty line, 1 in 10 children live below the poverty line – people NEED these jobs.

Phil, you definitely have a point about job security. Last week, I took a taxi from Helsinki to my place in (western) Espoo (25-e, ouch!) because I accidentally missed the last bus. I casually–albeit perhaps clumsily–mentioned to the taxi driver that eventually the Metro will extend into Espoo.

Well, the taxi driver became sort of jittery and said, “But, but, then we taxi drivers will lose their jobs.”

Fortunately, I was able to think quickly and reassure him that, by then, Helsinki’s suburbs will extend to Kirkkonummi; so he’ll always have enough work. He seemed relieved.

And I was also relieved that he didn’t see me as some evil Espoolainen intent on dismantling the Finnish worker state. Geez, in that case, he’d probably have hit the fast-forward button on the fee-meter

The question is whether the state is actually doing a disservice to the public by imposing rules in the name of protection.

Well then why doesn’t Phil say so in the first place instead of throwing around wild and exagerrated theories about baby box-beds for stupid parents and whatnot. (By the way, the baby box-bed thing is really old, and it has been explained to you time and time again. So drop it already.)

When I see an exagerrated verbal hyberbole created only to serve the speakers own agenda, my first instinct is to shoot it down and have fun with it.

As for stupid laws and regulations, yes, I do think that we have too many of those in Finland. Banning smoking on private balconies is one. I don’t mind banning smoking in restaurants (I don’t smoke) because there it causes harm to others. But I think that it is up to the building councils to decide whether they allow smoking on balconies or not, not the city or state.

bike helmet laws are there to protect the cyclists from injuries caused by asshole car drivers. Plenty of those around. I disagree with Phil. There are not enough restrictions and cautions here, esp. for traffic safety. Finns need discipline and laws will teach ‘em!

Where is the law to use emergency lights to warn the traffic behind for dangerous situations, or because your speed is too low. Or when you’re parked in a potentially dangerous spot?
How come that still so many accidents happen on zebra crossings?
How is traffic warned for road works up ahead? Sometimes not at all!
Explain to me a 30 speed limit on a straight, wide lane road with sidewalks on both sides, while my street, without any pedestrian sidewalk, and hardly space for two cars to pass has a 40 limit?
Explain to me the how the “search for the (back of the) yield road sign on the road of the other” is contributing to road safety?

I think we’re missing some new laws!

More importantly, 10% of Finns are below the poverty line, 1 in 10 children live below the poverty line – people NEED these jobs.

Something’s not right here. According to the UNICEF:

“At the top of the child poverty league are Denmark and Finland with child poverty rates of less than 3 per cent. At the bottom are the United States and Mexico, with child poverty rates of more than 20 per cent.”

Does that mean that in the USA the people get the “job they need” even less often than in Finland?

Anzi–I hate when neighbors smoke on their balconies. That’s one law I totally (and selfishly) favor!

“The question is whether the state is actually doing a disservice to the public by imposing rules in the name of protection.[...] So why in world do we have all these silly rules regarding shopping hours, minimum wage, liquor sales, etc.”

I’m pretty sure all these things you mentioned are steered by unions (although supported by the state). As they see it, if you give a teenager a low-paying job, then you take a ‘real’ job away from an adult. Plus, teenagers aren’t good union members.

There’s a similar argument against letting American prison convicts manufacture goods or perform services. It takes jobs away from the US private sector.

Things like helmet laws are usually governed directly by the state…unless Nokia suddenly steps into the helmet business

There’s a huge difference between Anglo-American and European legislation process. In most European countries laws are prepared and ratified by democratically chosen governments and parliaments, while in most Anglo-American countries laws are formed by practice in courts. At least for the most part. Thus a good lawyer and a bunch of morons (or just common people with no wider view of things) as a jury can actually “make a law”. In European countries, all decisions in court MUST be based on an existing law.

As a consecuense, in Anglo-American countries things might just be closer than they appear and coffee might be hot and you must be warned. You don’t have to ask me which practice I prefer; well formed and well-prepared laws and courts relying on these, or the other choice. I actually feel sorry for you Americans for this. That is so bullshit. In Finland, no judge wouldn’t even want to hear about a case conserning hot coffee.

Well, the taxi driver became sort of jittery and said, “But, but, then we taxi drivers will lose their jobs.”

Yeah, I’ll be out of a job too soon when people realize that mobile phones are just a fad.

By the way, the baby box-bed thing is really old, and it has been explained to you time and time again. So drop it already.

I bring it up just to make you perturbed.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr

I bring it up just to make you perturbed.

And here’s me thinking that it’s because you enjoy making an ass of yourself.

bike helmet laws are there to protect the cyclists from injuries caused by asshole car drivers. Plenty of those around. I disagree with Phil. :

If you get hit by a car, a helmet isn’t going to make the slightest difference. You need chain mail armor instead.

In fact the result of the famous hot-coffee case was that now McDonlads in the USA doesn’t serve coffee that can burn you. It’s cooler, in other words. In Finland some ministry would decide the maximum temperature and then send out people to control that the “law” (asetus or ohje) is followed.

Something’s not right here. According to the UNICEF:

“At the top of the child poverty league are Denmark and Finland with child poverty rates of less than 3 per cent. At the bottom are the United States and Mexico, with child poverty rates of more than 20 per cent.”

http://virtual.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=11829&group=General

@Juba

I’m under the impression that interpretation of Anglo-American law is based on existing precedent. The new decisions then become new precedents for future cases. I don’t think that actual laws can be formed through the court system. I could be wrong though.

Conversely, in Germany, for example, law is decided case-by-case–no precents are considered. I’m pretty sure no new law can be created by the courts and there is no new precedent for future cases.

I agree with everything you say about idiot-juries in the US. It’s an outdated system wherein cases have become too complex for the average person to understand. Having hybrid juries (combination of lay and professional members) like here in Europe is definitely a better solution.

Thus a good lawyer and a bunch of morons (or just common people with no wider view of things) as a jury can actually “make a law”.

They usually don’t make laws, they instill fear into manufactorers by the threat of being sued. Is it a law that McDonald’s must have “Warning Dumbass: HOT” on the label? To my knowledge it’s not. But once a court decision has been made, other people can cash in by spilling hot coffee on themselves. So the manufcatorers do everything to prevent this.

“Conversely, in Germany, for example, law is decided case-by-case–no precents are considered.”

Sorry, I meant to say that they can be considered, but the court isn’t bound by them.

Excuse me but:

1) Where does this article you referred to
http://virtual.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=11829&group=General
says that “10% of Finns are below the poverty line, 1 in 10 children live below the poverty line …”

2) You didn’t explain why poverty is according to the UNICEF so much more common in the USA. Is it because there are less low-paying jobs or isn’t it? If it isn’t, you have to rethink your argument because then it seems that the correlation between the two (poverty and low-paying jobs) is the opposite to what you said. In other words, more low-paying jobs correlate with more poverty.

Kristian: I think you are absolutely right: Anglo-American law is based on existing precedent. So it kind of is and isn’t a law, courts must follow decisions made earlier in similar cases. Just like you said. I think my english just isn’t good enough when it comes to legal language .

In Germany and most(?) European countries decisions are based on the effective (voimassa oleva) law. Preceding cases can and are (at least in Finland) used as arguments when courts make decisions. Since preceding decisions used are based on the existing law, there is no problem with that.

I think you’re absolutely right that in system like that cases will become too complicated to understand for normal people.

Phil: Since earlier decisions in the US form the basis of new decisions, the effectice law is based on the existing precedent. So there’s nothing odd in adding warning labels in coffee mugs because you will be punished because someone else has been punished for the same thing, too hot coffee that is.

And here’s the article about child poverty in Finland…

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Income+disparity+extends+even+to+children/1135219337391

100,000 children in Finland live below the poverty line.

>I think you’re absolutely right that in system like that cases will become too complicated to understand for normal people.

I mean the American system..

You didn’t explain why poverty is according to the UNICEF so much more common in the USA.

I think immigration has a lot to do with it. 1 million new immigrants in US each year, many of whom arrive with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Meanwhile, Finland has one of the stingiest immigration policies in Western countries.

But don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way saying that the US handles poverty better than Finland!

Phil: Since earlier decisions in the US form the basis of new decisions, the effectice law is based on the existing precedent. So there’s nothing odd in adding warning labels in coffee mugs because you will be punished because someone else has been punished for the same thing, too hot coffee that is.

yes, exactly.

Phil, that’s a terrific article. Read the last paragraph:

>On the European scale the Finnish poverty situation is still relatively good. For example in Portugal and Spain most children live below the poverty line. In Finland only one out of ten children shares the same fate.

I wonder what the *uck was the scale they were measuring this with…

But don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way saying that the US handles poverty better than Finland!

But you were! In a way. Providing that these low-paying jobs are more abundant there than in Finland. You argument was, after all, that “minimum wages” have to be lowered so that poverty would decrease.

But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that you’re outright wrong. There just seems to be a discrepancy between your argument and what’s going on in the USA. I don’t what to think: suo siellä, vetelä täällä, as we say here in Finland

Anyway, the problem is regional rather than structural. We just have to wait till everybody has moved to the south and the problem will be solved.

Well, if you think your personal freedom is restricted by seatbelts, buy a pre- 1.1.1971 registered car.

Well there is this saying “By law shall the country be built” describing the Scandinavian legalistic tradition all the way from the medieval times. And the law was supposed to bind everyone, the king and high officials included. The very reason, why the finns got eventually pissed off with the czar was that he was violating the constitution by his 1898 actions.

Now given this, consider a complex, stochastic and sometimes indeterministic system called the Finnish society. You throw in a stimulus, say, a law about compulsory seatbelts and record the output, which is the reduced traffic fatalities. Was the law good? Well, not bad. Did you loose something essential of your personal freedom? I guess not. But you lost the abstract concept of taking your own responsibility on your safety? Yea, but the guy on the next bed did not smash his concrete concept of brains into the windshield.

I guess the traditional finnish line of thought goes approximately this way.

“Yeah, I’ll be out of a job too soon when people realize that mobile phones are just a fad. ”

I guess that’s the problem with living in a historically proletarian society. Workers don’t like change and try to hold-on to their positions. They might have a point though; these days, change doesn’t benefit workers in the west.

Consider that if you lose your job because they stop making mobile phones…or if my job becomes obsolete (I’m a programmer, so it probably will) then I picture us finding near-equal jobs doing something else…and we’ll continue to sit at our desks and sip coffee, eat overpriced donutsit and write these blog posts when things get boring.

For workers, it’s a different story: A bus driver pictures himself driving a taxi; a taxi driver pictures himself digging a ditch; and a ditch digger pictures himself…well, perhaps digging an even bigger ditch. For them, there seems to be a downward trend here in the west.

Hopefully, as society becomes more sophisticated, this historical proletarian mindset will become increasingly unnecessary…but I hope there’s still someone around to provide me with an overpriced taxi-ride back to Espoo

…buy a pre- 1.1.1971 registered car.

And make sure it’s not a certain swedish-made car, that had 3-point seatbelts since what, 1920′s?

Phil

“moble phones are just a fad” Ask the Cell operaters on how long they have leases for their cell towers. Most are just 20 years or so. The reason I think, is they expect a better technology to come along. Maby space based cell towers.

Poor Phil? He’s been in Finland 4 years and he’s still asking, “Why is this different?” instead of accepting and adapting to the situation. It’s sad really.

I wonder if he’ll ever figure out that Finland’s been around for centuries and is not likely to change for him.

#51 That was supposed to read “Poor Phil.”

Poor Phil? He’s been in Finland 4 years and he’s still asking, “Why is this different?” instead of accepting and adapting to the situation. It’s sad really.

Where did I ask that? Just because I’m a foreigner doesn’t mean I can’t suggest change, does it? The next time I hear you whine about the U.S., I guess I should say, “You just need to accept and adapt to the U.S.’s war efforts and poverty”.

On this blog we talk about change in Finland, if you don’t like hearing it, fuck off.

I suppose you won’t complain when Mexican immigrants want you to speak Spanish either, right?

Phil is a libertarian. I don’t think he has anything against Mexicans moving to the US or speaking Spanish there.

How would libertarian handle poverty? Laissez-faire, of course! Let’s the next guy take the responsibility. Ineffective with bible in american style or would anyone in america do charity in libertarian paradise where there isn’t tax reductions (since there are no taxes).

Nothing wrong with new ideas, right Anonymous?

This is just a blog, relax.

Perhaps I should move to Saudi Arabia and complain loudly that I can’t buy a beer.

Poor Phil? He’s been in Finland 4 years and he’s still asking, “Why is this different?” instead of accepting and adapting to the situation. It’s sad really.

I wonder if he’ll ever figure out that Finland’s been around for centuries and is not likely to change for him.

Man, that sounds like something out of Monty Python! “Nope, we’re not going to bloody change, no matter how ridiculous we look!”

right back at you finnpundit

Dear me, is it the maternity box again? Gives you nightmares, doesn’t it, Phil? How about a posting about the Everyman’s Right while you are at it?

Phil: Nice blog you have but you are starting sound like Scrats from ice age…always going after those damn liberal peanuts

Trust me, as an expatriot living in Stockholm, the Swedes are worse. Just watch any main edition of Rapport or Aktuellt and see how far they can get into the programme without at least one report on why a, b or c are bad for your health / likely to give you cancer / probably will kill you on the way to work tomorrow etc etc.

Swedes put on a wetsuit, snorkel mask and helmet… and that’s just before they attempt to do wash up their dishes.

eventual 15,000 UN force needed in Lebanon.

Came on guys, go.

Or will I be disappointed again?

Or will you call in the USA again?

Come on rulers of the free world. Lead on.

“Helmets are required because adults are too stupid to ride a bike without falling on their heads. I could go on and on…”

All these “stupid” laws are probably because EVERY Finn is automaticly health-insured by the state (entitled to free health-care, and if your disable you get money, pension, for from the state for the rest of your life). And that means that every accident costs FINLAND LOT of money. Of course to upheld this system Finland has some studip monopolies: Alcohol & gambling. And many many stupid and high taxes…

I suppose you won’t complain when Mexican immigrants want you to speak Spanish either, right?

Oh, Hispanics have been speaking Spanish for several decades in the US, as have the Chinese, the Koreans, the Finns, and whoevernot. If Europeans think this is a scary scenario for Americans, then it only points out their own fears, because loss of cultural identity through loss of language is more of a threat to Europe than for the US.

In the end, English survives because it is the language of business. If Spanish all of a sudden became the language of the business world, then Americans would rush to adapt to that change; – Europe would not, and, – of course – lag behind in development as a result, as always.

@67,
‘several decades’? You mean there have been Hispanics in El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula (AKA LA) for that long? Your command of history is, as always, impressive.

Nuevo México was apparently founded in 1598:

http://www.unmpress.com/Book.php?id=10122435137945

In 1610 a travel journal called “Historia de Nueva México” was published. It’s an epic poem about the founding of Nuevo México.

The Mayflower arrived in the New World in 1620. I wonder if some of the Spanish-speakers of New Mexico could trace their ancestry to the founding of their great state (former Spanish colony of Nuevo México). At least many of the Spanish-speakers of New Mexico have lived there before the Anglos arrived and have kept the Spanish language alive for centuries. New Mexico has no official language.

Helsinkian, what has Mayflower to do with it? I seem to remeber that Jamestown was founded earlier and weren’t there Spaniards in Florida even before that.

Well, yes, many Americans themselves wish to trace their “ancestry” to those Puritans but it has very little to do with historical facts. Englishmen beat Finns with eigth years, though.

By the way, does anybody understand what Finnpundit is saying? Everything he writes seems to make little or no sense …

The Mayflower didn’t bring the first English immigrants. Neither was I claiming that the Spanish speakers of New Mexico were the first Spanish immigrants.

My point was that ancestry is usually traced to the Mayflower. New Mexicans are also known for their ancestry and their ability to keep the Spanish language alive, despite the rest of America opting for English.

If you think of a Spanish speaker in Florida, the sterotype is a Cuban immigrant in Miami. If you think of a Spanish speaker in New York, the stereotype is a Puerto Rican immigrant. If you think of a Spanish speaker in California or Texas, the stereotype may very well be a Mexican immigrant.

But in New Mexico the stereotype of a Spanish speaker is someone with ancestry who descends from Spaniards, not Mexicans. I simply wanted to point out that there are old Spanish American families and one US state where Spanish has never been seen as a foreign language or as the language of immigrants who have come first after the Anglos.

I find the correspondence of the Spanish speakers of New Mexico to the WASPs in New England a fascinating question. The Mayflower is a legend above all and in the same way the founding of New Mexico is not significant for what it itself was but for the epic poem that it inspired. That epic was published ten years before The Mayflower even arrived.

One of the more successful Spanish Americans is Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado. His family has lived in the San Luis Valley of Colorado for generations. It’s true that they came there via Mexico and not directly from Spain but Senator Salazar can trace his ancestry all the way to 12th Century Spain.

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

Supposedly you haven’t been to Japan, yet. “Step into the metro after melody ends”.

An interesting result came to mind form “Freakonomics”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006073132X/sr=1-1/qid=1155812352/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3104386-9518242?ie=UTF8&s=books

There is this quiz game show “The Weakest Link” (Heikoin lenkki). Levitt refers to a study where somebody looked through all episodes and then made some calculations. It turned out that (American) players “eliminated” black co-players less often than other players, whatever their statistical level of knowledge was. Apparently fear of “looking like racist” in front of cameras is deeply rooted. On the other hand, “Hispanic” players were treated the other way around; they were likely to be eliminated whether they did well or not (more often and so on). Obviously some kind of racist or ethnocentric mechanism which the players didn’t consciously notice was at work there.

Anyway, it’s not true that Americans would welcome “Hispanics” with open arms. “Mexifornia: A State of Becoming” is an interesting book on the subject. “Are Illegal Mexican immigrants turning California into the kind of “cleptocracy” Mexico is?”

Fortunately the days when new immigrants could be persecuted pretty freely are over, I think. They don’t need to fear the same kind of fate the Chinese had, for example, or even Finns in some cases.

My feeling is that the US government is relatively pro-Hispanic. The Hispanic vote has been very crucial in deciding elections in recent years. The Cubans in Miami are known to be staunchly Republican people of conservative values to a great part and Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida is married to a Mexican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

Prof. Huntington of “Clash of Civilizations” fame has written a book called “Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity” (2004) that celebrates the Anglo-Protestant identity of the US and is generally a pamphlet against Hispanic immigration.

For those who don’t know, Jeb Bush and his wife Columba have three half-Anglo, half-Mexican children: George P. Bush, Noelle Bush and John Ellis Bush Jr. (aka Jeb Jr. aka Jebby).

Of these George P. Bush, a Dallas lawyer (with a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Texas) is expected to become a politician. Noelle has been in trouble with the law several times, in and out of rehab due to her substance abuse problem. Jebby was caught in 2000 having public sex at a mall parking lot and arrested in 2005 and charged for public intoxication and resisting arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noelle_Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush%2C_Jr.

I guess their fates are interesting as they are grappling with both their Bush heritage and with their half-immigrant identity.

Columbus landed at Puerto Rico in 1493 and Juan Ponce de León in Florida in 1519.

Interestingly, in 1819, as the US got Florida from Spain, the Adams-Onís treaty also included a provision that the US would keep hands off Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams-On%C3%ADs_Treaty

Puerto Rico was invaded by the US in the Spanish-American war of 1898.

I just noticed this thread and since I have first hand experience with bicycle accidents, I’ll give you my 2 cents.

Helmets are EXTREMELY useful. Let me specify.

In 1999 I was riding my cycle in Torkkelinmäki when a woman opened her car door right into my path. I flipped over the handle bar and landed on my neck. Without my helmet I would probably have suffered a very serious injury. The helmet was shattered.

A couple of weeks later, before I had managed to buy a new helmet, I had a collision with another cyclist, who came around a corner on a pedestrian lane. I don’t remember anything about the accident, but when I woke up, I was lying in a pool of my blood. I lost 4 teeth and had 24 stitches put in my mouth in the ER. The two front teeth in my lower jaw went through my lip and damaged it pretty badly. I lost all feeling in the left side of my mouth for over a year. I also had an internal tear from my upper jaw to the nasal cavity.

Now, 7 years later, I’m finishing up my tooth implant treatments. It has cost my insurance company a LOT more than a new helmet would have, not to mention all the pain and suffering I have experienced.

So don’t tell me helmets should be voluntary. You could buy hundreds of helmets with the money caused by just one accident. I still see people riding bikes without helmets and can only guess what rationalizations they use for that. Maybe I should publish my injury photos for them to illustrate their (and my) stupidity.

@78,
OK, I’ll start wearing mine. I knew all this, but the helmet is uncomfortable, especially in hot weather. Not like a safety belt (although I do know people who claim it takes valuable seconds of their time to put the belt on so they don’t). Maybe there are better models available, I’ll shop around.

Oh come on! You are not serious with this one! That is one of the “MAIN STUPIDITIES FROM THE US” that Europeans frowns upon: the over-neurotic carefulness towards anything that may hurt.
Rear mirror: “The objects may seem to be further than what they actually are”.
Coffee-mug: “Be careful, coffee is hot”, etc. etc. And the funny part is all the lawsuits as being a cause to this neurosis. “I didn’t know that I shouldn’t put my cat inside the microwave open”, “Oh, so inhaling cigarettes is killing me, let’s sue the company”.

Besides, the other “stupidities”, stereotypes you may call, are:
Fat mac-Americans,
Unfashionable nike-Americans,
Stuck-up and lousy Americans,
and yes “not that worldly” Americans.

Family meetings begin with the family team members being introduced to each other. ,