Slashdot Mirror

Nowdays, the term conservative refers (at best) to conserving money, rather than your surroundings. The environment you find yourself in. This is why disenfrancised conservatives look to Nader and Mr. Least Worst.

Nowdays, the term conservative refers (at best) to conserving money, rather than your surroundings. The environment you find yourself in. This is why disenfrancised conservatives look to Nader and Mr. Least Worst.

Are you kidding?

Is it still free speech when you have to go to a "free speech zone" to do it? That is absolutely restricting people's freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble. "Provably". Admit it.

The only difference between the current US administration and Mubarak is that Mubarak hasn't yet figured out what's tasteful and what's not. Arresting Immortal Technique for making a cartoon of GW with a bullet in his head wouldn't look very good. You stop the demonstrators before they get to the demonstration. You don't arrest your political oponents, you just make sure the contested election is decided by a political body that swings your way. And no, I'm not trying to say that the Democrats are above this.

P.S. In order to trample free speech, it has to be the government. Your link is partisan PR.

I mean, on one hand, American politics (IANAA, but an interested observer) do generally resolve to a left vs. right sort of continuum. Ergo, if you're sitting well to the left end of the spectrum, you're obviously going to see more people to your right than to your left. It's normal, much like someone sitting well to the right won't have much company over to his right.

Take as an example the American Conservative Magazine's editorial coverage of the 2004 election. They ran a feature in the Nov. 8th edition discussing who to vote for.

Out of the six editorials, one of the six recommended George W. Bush. One. Granted, they did go out of their way to make arguments for all the options (including one for John Kerry), but the fact remains that there are people out there who feel that George W. Bush is a traitor to conservativism (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here, just pointing this out).

And I'm not even going to get into big government/libertarianism, historical/technical definitions of conservative/liberal, etc., etc. My point is that in the context of American politics, for as long as there are two dominant, fairly well-defined groups along a fairly well-correlated spectrum - it doesn't matter what we call each one or where they're situated - somewhere between the two groups, there will be a statistical mean.

And I'd say that a statistical mean is as good a place as any to make comparison. It's not the only place, of course - you can make comparisons to the rest of the world. Uruk's done that in a fairly good post below this one, although he omitted some issues (immigration) that would go against his trend. I'd be inclined to say that the left-right spectrum in Europe is simply not perfectly aligned with the American spectrum, though I certainly wouldn't argue that the European center is closer to the American left than the American right.

You can also make historical comparisons, but those are difficult - ideologies change, issues and threats change, and the two groups shift over time. Look no further than the death of small federal government.

Anyways, to cut to the point, the post about the UCLA analysis above is really interesting to me because it actually compares media coverage of the various groups to something other than the other groups. If you look at FOX News and then at, say, CBS (IANA Dan Rather Fan), it's natural to say that FOX is further right than CBS in their coverage. That one's hard to debate. However, what's more interesting is how the various networks relate to the American political spectrum as a whole, rather than simply the other media institutions.

Of course, what'd be even more interesting would be a benchmark that keeps track of which of the news companies are the most factually accurate, rather than just where they stand politically. Or maybe that's just me.

Cheers

Many try to counter that freedom of speech only applies to speaking about the government.

Whereas in the US, free speech no longer applies when you are speaking about the government -- unless you happen to agree with Bush...

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID =111986&SecID=2
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=1 3699&c=86

Here's the article. The author went to a "conservative" political action committee, and the minority of pro-peace conservatives were practically spat upon.

"Orwellian" would mean Big Brother is watching. And you're right. "Orwellian" has been used so much, it has been pegerized into conspiracy-nut meaninglessness.

While a national ID would smell like Orwell, reality at hand is more akin to Huxley. Huxley spelled out a future where everyone was turned (by drugs and something like TV) into obedient zombies. Surveillance was unnecessary. I think that is closer to the world we have now. (How many of us would rather escape into a sitcom than think about--hell, DO SOMETHING about--the horrors of runaway government?)

I heard of a contemporary poet saying that Big Brother isn't watching; he's singing and dancing. When people are more interested in American Idol (or Slashdot) than they are in things that affect their lives, I think that's accurate.

According to an article in a recent edition of the American Conservative, being a conservative these days means unconditional support of the war and worshipping the President and the Party. That is all.

The author of the article, who had recently been at a Republican convention, laments that anyone who is too intellectually alert to realize that these things are neither conservative nor desirable is instantly shunned as a "leftie."

America's definitions of words for political stance have been so perverted that meaningful political discussion is very difficult in face-to-face conversation unless you start with definitions, and literally impossible on TV.

I think the whole thing strikes me as frighteningly Huxleyan. There probably isn't much we can do about it at this point.

The cited indymedia page has how many suggestions of an actual attempt to shut down the convention?

0

That's right folks, the expression was in jest.

What's not a joke are Free Speech Zones everywhere our fearless leader goes.

Thanks for playing our game!

God damn it - you ripped the words right out of my mouth dude... (well, I lied - Pat Buchanan's mouth)

you ripped the words right out of my mouth (or, well, Pat Buchanan's mouth). Eventually, all democracies commit suicide.

Hey, how do you like it when The American Conservative publishes warnings about "the coming of American fascism"? Quotes Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan's creator of "supply side economics", on the "brownshirting" of American Conservatism? When even your talking points mill is sounding the alarms, where are you going to get your cues?

Hunger for Dictatorship

War to export democracy may wreck our own.

by Scott McConnell

Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, McCarthyism, "the Sixties" (1964-1973), the NEP, the purge trials--all have their dates. Weimar, whose cultural excesses made effective propaganda for the Nazis, now seems like the antechamber to Nazism, though surely no Weimar figures perceived their time that way as they were living it. We may pretend to know what lies ahead, feigning certainty to score polemical points, but we never do.

Nonetheless, there are foreshadowings well worth noting. The last weeks of 2004 saw several explicit warnings from the antiwar Right about the coming of an American fascism. Paul Craig Roberts in these pages wrote of the "brownshirting" of American conservatism--a word that might not have surprised had it come from Michael Moore or Michael Lerner. But from a Hoover Institution senior fellow, former assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, and one-time Wall Street Journal editor, it was striking.

Several weeks later, Justin Raimondo, editor of the popular Antiwar.com website, wrote a column headlined, "Today's Conservatives are Fascists." Pointing to the justification of torture by conservative legal theorists, widespread support for a militaristic foreign policy, and a retrospective backing of Japanese internment during World War II, Raimondo raised the prospect of "fascism with a democratic face." His fellow libertarian, Mises Institute president Lew Rockwell, wrote a year-end piece called "The Reality of Red State Fascism," which claimed that "the most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing."

I would argue that Rockwell--who makes the most systematic argument of the three--overstates the libertarian component of the 1994 Republican victory, which could just as readily be credited to heartland rejection of the '60s cultural liberalism that came into office with the Clintons. And it is difficult to imagine any scenario, after 9/11, that would not lead to some expansion of federal power. The United States was suddenly at war, mobilizing to strike at a Taliban government on the other side of the world. The emergence of terrorism as the central security issue had to lead, at the very least, to increased domestic surveillance--of Muslim immigrants especially. War is the health of the state, as the libertarians helpfully remind us, but it doesn't mean that war leads to fascism.

But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as "hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now." One of the biggest right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it's not just us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood, Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold War. "It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie se

How about the right to free speech, and the right to free association? Do the words designated free speech zone mean anything to you?

never had my privacy invaded by government or non-government individuals or organizations.

How do you know? Under the PATRIOT Act, warrantless searches can be conducted against you and you might never know it. In fact, the FBI can go to your local library to ask what books you've checked out or for records of what web sites you visited while there -- and the librarians are prohibited from even telling you of the inquiry. How do you know if your phone has been tapped, your Internet connection monitored, or your e-mail traffic examined?

never felt that my rights have been diminshed even in the least possible way, in fact I have more ways to express myself, more ways to share my views and absolutely no hint of having my freedom of speech oppressed or my freedom to life, liberty and property... I have more of each now than 2000.

Yes, your rights have been diminished -- whether you choose to exercise them or not. Show up at George W. Bush's inauguration carrying a sign protesting the war, his handling of the economy, or anything related to his Presidency. You will find yourself cordoned off in a "free speech zone" -- a euphamism for a remote, fenced-in area that's outside of the public's view.

Here's a link to a December 15, 2003 article in "The American Conservative" entitled "Free-Speech Zone": The administration quarantines dissent.. Notice how I chose a conservative publication to prevent you from whining about it being a liberal source.

I'm pink, therefore I'm spam.
Hormel loves you. So does the "pink embassy". Also you are loved by the Pink States and the red-to-pink states. :-)

In China you get into jail for saying what you think.

I disagree, this article pretty much sums it up. Please note the source: American Conservatives.

Okay, how about this: "This is the most important election of MY lifetime".

From the cover of the series:

"we've asked several of our editors and contributors to make "the conservative case" for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki's column closing out this issue, constitute TAC's endorsement."

They go on to endorse the Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka - not John Kerry.

"Without big ideas, elections become about personalities--popularity contests, nothing more. Both major candidates are filching each others' rhetoric and pandering. All that matters is the sell, not the content. Kerry is an opportunist sans pareil, Bush a man under the wrong influence. Vote for the real deal, Michael Anthony Peroutka."

From the cover of the series:

"we've asked several of our editors and contributors to make "the conservative case" for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki's column closing out this issue, constitute TAC's endorsement."

They go on to endorse the Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka - not John Kerry.

"Without big ideas, elections become about personalities--popularity contests, nothing more. Both major candidates are filching each others' rhetoric and pandering. All that matters is the sell, not the content. Kerry is an opportunist sans pareil, Bush a man under the wrong influence. Vote for the real deal, Michael Anthony Peroutka."

Kerry's the one.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

You might be ineterested to hear what the magazine American Conservative has to say on it. http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Actually, if you want to go back in history, you brits invaded Iraq twice, was it? =) It must be amusing to watch us would be imperialists play at the game you gave up so long ago.

7 Habits of Highly Effective Imperialists

(Un)fortunately, Pat Buchanan has reluctantly decided to endorse Bush for President.

Nader would do no such thing for Kerry, as to do so would kill him politically.

The simple fact is that job growth in the US is not happening as fast as immigration.

It isn't an issue of blaming immigrants-but a question of the policy involved(and the folks that created athat policy) _and_ the real economic effects of that policy. During most of its history, the US economy was a vehicle for job growth that outstripped the rate of immigration. That has changed--and any likely mechanisms to reverse that (i.e. opening a new frontier or a major change in tax policy) are going to take time to have their effects felt.

Ralph Nader believes $10/hour is a living wage. Why don't we make it $100/hour?

The folks libertiarians really need to look at strategically are those that have to work for a living. Ralph Nader has specifically suggested elimination of the income tax on incomes under $100K--and raising taxes on wealth above $5 Million and pollution(and consideration of a land tax)--and thus far "Libertians" have been remarkably quiet about a proposal by America's leader liberal that would mean that the bulk of the population could be totaly extricated from the income tax system---without huge disruption of the major government services.

Personally, I would put more emphasis than Nader and Baldrson did on taxing increases in land prices that result from changing the tax system--I suspect those price changes would be substantial.
Still, the big thing is that we need the government to quit hurting the most economically vulnerable of the US population. It is people trying hard to get established that can be completely edged out of the job market by the existing system.

As for the "Free Speech Zones", those were in front of the Democratic Convention, in the Democratic-controlled city of Boston, practically the home town of Senator John Kerry. I didn't see such limited zones in front of the Republican convention in New York City, which has a Republican mayor and a Republican governor. Kind of shoots down your tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, doesn't it?

It's not like the Republicans haven't set up their own free speech zones before..

Or have they?

Everyone in the United States should think very carefully about the past four years, and also remeber what the United States was like before the current administration.

How has your life changed so drastically under the Bush administration? Please tell me.

Once you've come to your conclustion, start telling everyone you know to vote Kerry

Why? What exactly would Kerry change or do so differently than Bush? I fail to see any large contrast from the campaign that Kerry has been running.

The reason the Democrats are losing ground to the Republicans is because the republicans are actually more tolerant of different views within the party. Both Schwarzenegger and Guliani are pro-abortion conservatives that spoke at the Republican National Convention. When was the last time a Democrat allowed a pro-life speaker at the DNC? Democrats are hardliners on their issues, while the Republican party is a big tent with many different views included. You don't have to agree with the whole Republican platform to be a Republican. If you don't agree with the whole platform of the democrats, they smear you with names like "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc"

Their problem in this election year is they picked the wrong guy, who is running the wrong campaign. Howard Dean would have done much better because he offers contrast to the president. Edwards would have been better because he would have focused on Jobs and domestic issues. Kerry spends most of his time talking about Vietnam. He needs to stop and attack Bush on the issues if he wants to win. He's boring as fuck too. Unlike Edwards or Dean who are at least motivational when they speak

And for those who are worried about a one party America, don't. The second the Republican party can manage even 60 perecent of the vote consistantly, there will be a split between paleocons and neocons. See the American Conservative Magizine website if you don't believe me. There might even be a split before then.

The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France

This, of course, is just as trollish as the "Bush is Hitler" trolls...

Neither of us are going to be prevented from expressing our views.

You aren't paying attention and/or your media is being ... 'selective'. Most recently, there were the protesters in NYC who were jailed, and held even after a judge ordered their release. Or the story of reporter Ana Nogueira, who was arrested in Miami while covering a protest. Or even something as common-place and accepted as "Free-Speech Zones"...

I'm sure he'll still have his little 2% taking away from the Democrats come Election Day.

I didn't find a story about anyone being arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts (although I did read it somewhere. I'll have to find it.) However, there are plenty of stories of people being arrested for the horrible crime of having an anti-Bush opinion and wanting to express it via signs, in a venue where the President might see or hear it.

The ACLU has been kind enough to chronicle some examples.

In addition for those who are not apt to believe anything you hear from the ACLU perhaps an article from the December 15 American Conservative Magazine might convince you.

Unfortunately, he violations of free speech are real. This is not a bunch of people in the midst of a "tin-hat" moment. And if you think it will get any better with another four years of this fool Bush you're having a "head in the sand" moment.

Rainey

If they wanted to earn my trust, they could have stuck to their rhetoric about the whole country being a free speech zone, rather than pulling this shit at the DNC.

>So if I show up in a T-shirt that says BushSucks then I am a "security risk"
Yeah, I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption in the current political climate.

The "current political climate"? And what is so special about it? People have expressed support and opposition to every American presidential candidate in history.

I disagree. They're still allowed to hold their signs. Just not in any place they choose.

Someone holding a sign opposing one presidential candidate somehow has less rights than a person holding a sign opposing another presidential candiate?? If you don't see a problem with that, I don't think there's anything else I can say to you.

OK, so if people show up to protest, they should be put in jail?

YES! *If* they are criminals.
And obviously anyone who is not a criminal obviously does not get thrown in jail. Anyone who is not a criminal is just another member of the general public. A member of the general public with the exact same rights to go anywhere / do anything as the rest of the general public. Either way, nobody gets marched into a "free speech zone" at gunpoint.

Consider a set of scales.

No! I will absolutely not consider a set of scales!

If you saw a single black American bound in slavery today, would you point to a set of scales and cite all of the black Americans who are not bound in slavery?

That is not "counter evidence"!

The only counter evidence would be if you somehow attempted to claim that the described events did not in fact occur. You would have to provide evidence that Bill Neel was not in fact arrested solely for political speech. You would have to provide evidence that police detective John Ianachione did not testify that the Secret Service told local police to confine people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views. You would have to provide evidence that Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula did not throw out the arrest declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to `I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?`" You would have to provide evidence that Bursey's arresting officer did not say "Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem". You would have to provide evidence that another judge did not throw out that arrest as invalid as well. You would have to provide evidence that the St. Louis protesters were not quarantined from the press, that the ACLU was lying when they said "The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media". THAT would be counter evidence.

The most sacrosanct protection of the First Amendment is the freedom to express political speech free from government oppression based on the oppinion expressed in that speech. We are harldy talking about a single anomolous violation of that right. We are talking about intentional and systematic encroachment on that right.

If we allow that right to be infringed then all of our rights fall into jeopardy.

-

Apparently you are not aware of what has been going on. People are not being moved for "safety reasons". They are being marched into quarantine zones purely for the content of their speech. Furthermore the press are often denied access to these zones. People who do not comply are being arrested - and then judges commonly toss out the arrest as invalid. Either way they are taken out of circulation for the duration of the event.

It is Bush/Ashcroft policy to supress critcism by whatever means available, legal or not.

Really, take a look at what has been going on. Do a Google search on "free speech zone". For example here is the #1 Google result. Read that link. Rather amusingly that website is The American Conservative. You know government abuse is getting bad when conservatives come out is support of an ACLU lawsuit LOL!

-

Since the right to free assembly is granted in your constituition

Bush supports the right to free assembly.

"There is no consistency as to what is acceptable in one region for the ATF that won't be acceptable somewhere else," said Wickman. "The ATF people seem, as a rule, to feel this whole idea of hobby rocketry being regulated by the (government is) a mistake and a waste of time. There's a disconnect between the ATF in Washington and the regional field offices."

What's worse, even though not much has changed about the regulations, they are subject to arbitrary interpretation in the field, said Bundick, of the National Association of Rocketry. "It's a never-ending treadmill to try to pacify the local inspector."

The Justice Department's Nowacki didn't respond to questions about the ATF's perceived inconsistency.

• (1st) free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion;
  
• (4th) unreasonable searches and seizures;
  
• (5th) freedom from self-incrimination;
  
• (6th) rights to counsel and to a speedy trial
  
• (8th) freedom from cruel and unusual punishments
  
• (9th) rights retained by the people
  
• (10th ) or rights reserved by the States

It's all about Israel. All of it.

There is an alternative - still American, patriotic, and proud - still mainstream, still coherent and above all still viable politically.

Go to The American Conservative site, and see what Pat Buchanan and his colleagues have to say - it's not PC, it's not leftist, but it is still the strongest indictment of the way that America has been led astray that I have seen.

Disclaimer - I'm British, and a supporter of the BNP - take that as you see fit.

This could be a tool to find the next 9/11 and I am all for it.

If there were going to be another terrorist attack, don't you think *something* would already have happened, even if it was just a Hammas-style bus bombing?

When even the normally insane Pat Buchanan writes a lengthy, thoughtful, and accurate essay on why the "war on terror" is a sham - and it gets the cover of a conservative magazine, that should set off alarm bells in everyones' heads.

Al Qaeda already got what they wanted - they blew up some Americans, sent the US on its way to becoming a totalitarian state, isolated it from its allies (particularly in the Middle East), *and* as a bonus Iraq will soon be converted into a hardline Islamic nation. They didn't even lose their leader in the process.

What could they possibly gain by sticking their necks out again?

I actually thoroughly agree with Pat Buchanan!

Actually it is you who doesn't know what a neoconservative is (why do I get the feeling you are one?). It is not just the left that uses that. The right uses it too. Consider the example of and Pat Buchanan (paleoconservative). Also, left-wing anti-war activists are REACTIONARY? lol Whatever! The bogus invasion of Iraq is more reactionary than any anti-war position.

Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld... all life-long conservative Republicans.

Bush, Powell, and Rice are not neoconservatives. Bush is pretty much belongs to the Christian Right. However, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, et al are neoconservatives (along with a whole hoard of people at National Review and The Weekly Standard).

Oh, one more thing... Neoconservatives are a branch of the Republicans. So it doesn't matter what they were doing before. Most of them are ex-Trotskyites. If anything, most of the neoconservatives in power now are recycled Reganites.

Read this article for some information about the neoconservative family. Sivaram Velauthapillai

Who the hell do you think got us into this mess in Iraq? The fucking Israel lobby and its neocon think tanks, media outlets, and hawks in the Bush administration with the support of their dumbass golems the Christian Zionists.

Highly recommend you read:

Pat Buchanan: Whose War?

Justin Raimondo: Israel's Amen Corner

#1: The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance:

Perhaps you'd like to hear this from American Conservative Magazine, then?

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

And so on, into the intimate details of how the neocons have exercised their influence, and spelling out in detail the series of papers that laid out their rationale well before September 11th, 2001. This in a publication that has a quote from Patrick Buchanan on the header.

Take a look at the things George Will has said recently about this administration. Has he been fronting the liberal propaganda movement any time recently?

It can be stopped. But it means learning the lesson that free trade is a deeply flawed ideology. It means voting for this guy.

We were talking about replacement because of population decline. I brought up Japan because it was an example of a population that will not be replaced despite declining birth rate. And I also pointed out the reason that it will not be replaced: no immigration. I fail to see why I need to explain this in detail to you, it's obvious from reading the post.

You claim that we "were not talking about 'cultural pressure'. We were talking about birth rate."

Yet in the quote that started this discussion:

"In a hundred years, our current free society will have been completely replaced in a way far more thorough than the Roman Empire was replaced. The current freedom is already dead on its feet.

Why? Give me facts, not hyperbole. "

Sounds to me like we are talking about cultural replacement. So I brought up Japan to buttress my other points.

Now you accuse me of being negative towards Hispanic culture. I do not look negatively on Hispanic culture, as I've said before. Why do you think I do? I simply do not wish it to replace my own culture. I would imagine that Hispanics feel the same way, in fact I know they do. They go to great lengths to preserve their culture from the current majority culture here. Moreover, please note that Christian morality is part of culture, not the entire culture, as I hardly thought that I needed to point out.

As for the melting pot, it no longer exists. The expression "melting pot" was originated to describe the assimilation of (white European) immigrants into American culture. What we've got now is a salad bowl where no assimilation takes place.

You say American culture doesn't exist. But it has existed for centuries. We've been a white European nation with a white European culture speaking English.

You bring up the idea that we are a "proposition nation," to use the frequent term. But we're not a nation based on ideology - that's what the Soviet Union was. I'll point you to a good article by Zmirak on the subject. I'd also recommend Peter Brimelow's article, Time to Rethink Immigration. Look under the subheading: What is a Nation?

And finally, I see where you misunderstood me on the "birth rate ratio" comment. I was comparing the 1890-1920 immigration wave to the current post-1965 one. I worded it badly however, so let me put it this way: Without further immigration our population should be around 300 million by 2050. With immigration it will be about 500 million. Those numbers are far worse if you look at the post-1965 wave in its entirety. In the 1890-1920 wave, almost 40% of the immigrants went home eventually (compared to 10% today). Moreover, the population size due to 1890-1920 immigration was small compared to the population size due to natural growth. Now that our population is not growing fast at all, except for recent immigrants, new immigrants, and children of immigrants, the ratio of immigrants and recent immigrants to the rest of society is large and growing. Hence the replacement issue.

I hear you. The open borders crowd owns Congress, however. The American people don't want the vast influx of immigrants who provide what is basically a slave labor force. They don't want to see jobs outsourced to India simply because Indians are so poor that they'll work for nearly nothing. Corporations do want this however, and they own Congress. Republicans are so used to fending off Democratic attacks on American business, that they don't realize that it's slightly different with a multi-national business. A rising tide lifts all boats, sure, but third world countries have a long way to be lifted. And Democrats are so into the hogwash of diversity and multi-culturalism, that they embrace an influx of third-worlders right across the boarder without a second thought. And that's despite the fact that it's primarily poor Americans whom it hurts -- Blacks have lost out to Hispanic labor in an especially big way.

I'll recommend two websites:

VDARE -- An immigration reform site
The American Conservative -- Pat Buchanan's new magazine It's got some good pieces even if you don't agree with the politics. And it's saying some things no one else is.

Decline of the Dollar

I believe most of us IT people belong in "Ship 'C'", so the devaluation of the dollar may not be such a bad thing for those actually adding value to things. There is no question about it - something has to give, and the most likely thing is the value of the dollar on the world market.

I see this in a much better light than the author, as the author paints a pretty bleak picture of the pending devaluation of the dollar, primarily because of its valuation relative to the last historical precedent of 10-12 years ago. I believe the author leaves out some important points that should work to blunt the devaluation of the dollar like the larger amount of investment capital available, and the overall large gains in productivity since then.

As far as offshore outsourcing, there is also historical precedent for that failing to put the US IT job market in the crapper (oddly enough, at the turn of the last decade also). That was primarily because the complexity of building custom, large-scale, enterprise-class systems made good and timely communication and business knowledge of paramount importance - something that I don't think even the best teleconferencing systems and WAN technology can provide now any better than then.

open source lives would be ideal, since no one would exploit others

Are you kidding me?

You are saying that (open source) --> non-exploitation of some human beings by other human beings

The contrapositive of this statement is that:

if (human beings are exploited) --> there is no open source

Get your head out of your 4th point of contact!

Negative elements of human nature have existed for as long as people have -- Eve wasn't exposed to the apple but for minutes before she took a bite!

Anybody who thinks they have nothing to hide: think again. Think about how the media pieces together mere shreds of circumstantial evidence and people -- the vast majority of people -- glean from that *circumstantial data* the guilt or innocence of another human being whom they know not at all (and about whose case these people know only bare tidbits). Think random tidbits of your life couldn't be strung together to produce a much different context than the one that is actually at play? Think again. Or at least read some Philip Dick fer cryin' out loud.
Here is a link to another article on the ongoing surveillance creep.

That's because the neocon ranks *are* heavily populated by Likudniks, Christian Zionists, and former Trotskyites. The paleo right has known this all along, and the left is catching on.

Joseph Sobran: Defining Conservatism Downward

Justin Raimondo: Israel's Amen Corner

Pat Buchanan: Whose War?