I think the UC system had the state-supported part of their budget cut an equivalent amount. And that's just the cut THIS year. Point two of my defense of Putin: Many part-time teachers, whether titled as adjunct faculty or others, are paid very little. When I pick up an extra class at a neighboring university, the pay is $3000 for one three-unit class, which would be $30,000 for a full 30 units. That's working-class pay, all right--and there are no benefits. At the college where I work, part-time faculty are limited by law to 20 units per year, so they drive from college to college, working out of the trunks of their cars and doing their best to piece together a living wage. They don't get paid for holidays or semester breaks, they have only limited benefits (half of their individual health insurance paid at most), and the pay would max out at about $45000 per year for full-time work at the various campuses--if they can get it.

Truck driver depends. Independent guys who own and operate their own rigs are not working class. Those guys make more than me. Guys who over the road drive for a company are. They do physical labor. Handling a truck is physically demanding.

Prolly about as physically demanding as handling 5-7 year olds.

My third point in defense of Putin's assertions is that grading papers and preparing classes can be as easy or as hard as you want to make it, and conscientious teachers put their life energy into it. It's a very real cost, and many teachers burn out or pay a big price in health. The reason is that teaching is seductive--we're meeting a need, which feels good--but there is no end to that need, and it's hard to draw the line on the side of our own health and welfare. Oh, many faculty do draw that line firmly and refuse to cross it, but I know others who literally stay up all night, or get 3-4-5 hours of sleep a night because of the time spent on prep when they are teaching a new class.

There are some great articles on education and class in America in the book Rereading America, and I refer you to them.

This got way derailed. But yeah. I agree with Obi - it is insulting to the memory and legacy of Anne Frank, and countless other posthumously baptized people, Jewish or otherwise. I do understand why the Mormon church feels the need to do this, but I also understand why some people might be insulted by it. They're not wrong to be.

For what it's worth, I think the link in the first reply to this thread hits the nail on the head. All dead Mormons are now gay.

Mormon posthumous baptism isn't an insult. They make no claim whatsoever that the dead *are* converted and as far as I know, they don't claim that any posthumous conversions amongst their numbers. The Mormon belief on posthumous baptism is that it merely *offers* the dead the opportunity to convert because they missed the chance in life.

If anything, it's an honor and a kindness.

Also @ Draugnar - if physical labour is necessary for working class, does that mean the single mother who has run the customer service desk at a nearby hardware store for the past five years isn't working class? She doesn't unload heavy boxes in the warehouse or anything. She just handles returns and exchanges and and arranges delivery of purchases. So I guess that means she's middle class, even though she does shift work for $15 an hour? (Bear in mind that minimum wage is a little over $10 here.)

See, everyone is saying, oh you need to be tolerant and understand the other side of the debate, and what they believe, and how they feel.

Well you know what then? Be tolerant and try and understand my side. Try and understand what I believe, and what I feel. I don't want to be offered the opportunity to covert. I'm offended when Mormons or other Christians approach me on the subway and attempt to convert me, and try and tell me that something is missing in my life. I decide whether or not I'm fulfilled in my life thank you very much, I don't need some random strangers telling me whether or not I am. And you know what, I'm alive. I can at least make my feelings about the attempted conversion known. Dead people can't. It would be offensive enough if it were just people who weren't particularly religious in life, and just happened to die for unrelated reasons. But to try and posthumously convert people who were killed BECAUSE of their religious beliefs? That's pretty beyond the pale. Are Obi and I really the only ones who see this?

Also, an insult is in the interpretation, not the intent. I'm sure the Mormon church isn't seeking to cause offense with their posthumous conversions, but intent doesn't erase effect.

@ Viktyr L. Korimir

"Gay posthumous reorientation isn't an insult. They make no claim whatsoever that the dead *are* gay and as far as I know, they don't claim that any posthumous conversions amongst their numbers. The gay belief on posthumous reorientation is that it merely *offers* the dead the opportunity to become gay because they missed the chance in life.

If anything, it's an honor and a kindness." - Somehow I don't think dead gay mormons would agree.

Errr I should specify. The NEWLY gay dead mormons.

@Nike - ever changed a truck tire before? Didn't think so. Knowing a couple truckers from my church, I would say that the 5-7 year old demon spawns were probably easier.

@Mijus - I just pulled an allnighter (literaly worked till 5:30 am, got a shower, and went to work) can I claim my 100K plus job is working class? Sorry, but grading papers and prepping assignments does not make one working class no matter how many hours they put in.

Well my cousin (who used to be a full-time trucker and is now only part-time so he could take over my uncle's farm) agrees with me. Truckers do not change their tires every day. And much to your dismay, yes I have, infact I have changed

Many different tires that go to many different things.

Idk why that posted mid-sentence.

"I'm sure the Mormon church isn't seeking to cause offense with their posthumous conversions, but intent doesn't erase effect."

I am sure that gay people aren't trying to offend Mormons by being gay, yet Mormons are still offended. Does intent erase effect in this case? If gay people are allowed to practice being gay why can't Mormons practice their beliefs and rituals?

@Mafia - I agree with you that it is offensive to many and they and you have every right to be offended. But the point is it wasn't done by the Mormon church but by a small sect in East BuFu and wasn't sanctioned by the Mormon church.

@Nike - not every day, but they do change them. Are you trying to say being a truck driver is no more physically challenging than being a college professor?

Not at all (is that bad syllogism on your part?), just busting holes in your argument.

I am sure that gay people aren't trying to offend Mormons by being gay, yet Mormons are still offended. Does intent erase effect in this case? If gay people are allowed to practice being gay why can't Mormons practice their beliefs and rituals? - I'm not saying it should be illegal or anything for them to perform posthumous conversions, but if they're going to they're going to need to put up with the fact that a lot of people are going to be outraged and offended.

Fair enoigh

Also @ spyman - There is also a difference between Mormons being offended at gays, and non religious people and Jews being offended at posthumous conversions. Posthumous conversions are directed AT certain groups, these are actions which involve other people. Gays aren't being gay AT Mormons, it's a self directed action.

@ Draug - That's a fair point. I hereby redirect my outrage and offendedness at the smaller religious group that was performing these posthumous conversions.

@Mafia - Then I am offended right along side you as your friend.

@Nike - no, it wasn't bad syllogism. The original argument from Putin and others is that educators (and specifically college professors) are working class. If hours put in and dedication to the job makes one working class, then I'm working class. Yet I hardly think a senior level software engineer making six figures a year salary plus bonusses is a working class man.

Oh my...I have some catching up to do...

But you have made the mistake of combining my arguments with Putin's. And I think it was bad syllogism: if Putin is arguing with me, then he disagrees with me. And if Nike is arguing with me, the he disagrees with me. Then they both disagree with me and must have the same argument.

Class is not based on income. It is based on one's relation to the means of production. A person is working class if they sell their labour for a wage.

"Not possible. Snitchens is the Mitt Romney of plummy sounding dead Trotskyite snitches. "

Lolwut? Hitchens hasn't used Trotskyist rhetoric (let alone politics) for years. Also, shall I start calling you a Stalinoid? :P