Slashdot Mirror

None of the scum that killed police recently are Conservatives.

By "recently", you must mean, "this week".

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Excuse me, ... while your sleight of hand is impressive (and good for mod points), you aren't playing this straight. The article you link to doesn't list conservatives, it lists white people. That isn't the same. One deals with skin color, the other deals with ideas. There is nothing contradictory about being black and conservative:
  Clarence Thomas
  Thomas Sowell
  Herman Cain
  Larry Elder
  Sheriff David Clark
  Condoleezza Rice

Also note that there doesn't appear to be any common thread among the killers in that article as there is among the killings with connections to either Black Lives Matter or the New Black Panther Party.

Break it down. Where do you get your information from?

From African American techie friends and boyfriends.

The only words of wisdom available now are "don't trust a conquerors history, listen to the oppressed."

Yes, why don't you?

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

http://www.tsowell.com/spracec...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

The economic and social legacy of slavery is not the cause of crime and poverty in the African American community anymore. But instead of listening to reason, you listen to the self-serving lies of politicians and activists.

The "conquerors" are long dead. The fact that I (and you?) happen to have white skin color doesn't make us in any way related to the people who enslaved anybody. Check your racism.

Understanding why these things exist leads to one of two conclusions ... 2) their destruction was systematic, planned, and on-going, in such an extreme way that precludes all notions of a segregated society where everyone 'gets along'.

Well, it's clearly (2), carried out by the same people who have been carrying it out for a century: progressives and Democrats. Then as now, they view African Americans as inferior and incapable of succeeding on their own.

Thomas Sowell writes for National Review and has many interesting things to say.

Magic Numbers in Politics
Politics vs. Economics
Politics vs. Reality

Thomas Sowell writes for National Review and has many interesting things to say.

Magic Numbers in Politics
Politics vs. Economics
Politics vs. Reality

As a scholar, I would like to point out that 'Redneck' is a term that can describe stereotypical behavior which members of all races engage in. Particularly, modern 'ghetto culture' has it's roots in redneck culture. (Sowell himself is Black)

Of course! Have you not noticed how many companies are spending enormous amounts of money searching for a cure to cancer? A cure would be worth a lot of money, so people/banks/companies are willing to lend money to these companies to find one. The invisible hand at work!

Behavioral enconomics is not something spooky -- it is based on observation of past behavior and expected behaviors from these using reason. There really isn't an "invisible hand", you know ;)

For those interested in some common sense Economics, try reading articles from http://www.tsowell.com/ or http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew

The smartest, most hard-working programmer on the planet would still have his ass kicked by Brad Miller on the basketball court. Likewise, you don't have to be lazy or dumb to have your industry outpaced by another country. The US makes good movies, Germany makes good cars, Costa Rica grows good coffee, India makes good software. None of that's the result of a globalisation conspiracy. Sure, China's $300 billion in foreign reserves helps keep the dollar strong. But do you think that even with a weak dollar we could produce knick knacks as efficiently as the Chinese?

Cutting yourself off from international commerce is suicide. The most economically isolationist countries are the most wretched: North Korea and Belarus, for example. I don't want to follow their pattern. Your point about federalism is interesting, but probably too big of a topic to delve into here.

I like Home Depot, and I know people who have enjoyed working there. Some things scale well (like hardware and book stores), others (like craft & pet stores) seem better suited for mom & pop. Home Depot provides a lot of good services that mom & pop could never afford (e.g. huge stock of rental tools, home repair clinics, self-checkout counters).

Have you ever played Sims? A sim needs to regulate his hunger, comfort, energy, fun, social contacts, etc. Pure consumerism by itself won't make a sim happy. Buying your sim a large screen TV and pool table will keep his "fun" meter high, but if his "social" meter is bottomed out he'll still be miserable. I don't think that's too far from reality; Will Wright based Sims on David Friedman's "Economics of Everyday Life." Consumerism is hollow by itself. But, in context, buying stuff lets us furnish ourselves "a social and a personal identity."

P.S. Have you ever read the Poul Anderson story "The Last of the Deliverers"? Our discussions reminds me of it.

Might I submit for your consideration that you've listed the wrong keys to US success?

Imperialism is not a long term predicator of national success. It's often rather a result of success; if you're doing well enough to feed a large army, you can engage in conquest. Conquest does not always impy large scale transfers of wealth, Cortez being the biggest exception. Conquered peoples can thrive: England after Rome, Hong Kong after England, Spain after the Moors. As evil as conquest may be, I don't think it's an end-all explanation for the gross disparities in wealth that exist around the world.

Slavery exists today in Mauritania and Sudan, and it hasn't helped those countries achieve any measure of success. Slavery is an inefficient, stagnant labor system that wastes talent and resources. American slavery was exploitative and hypocrytical, but it didn't guarantee economic success to the US.

The economist Thomas Sowell put it, "humans may disriminate retail, but nature discriminates wholesale." Geography is a big culprit in wealth disparity. And navigable waterways are a main predicator of wealth: Seattle, San Francisco, New York, London, Istanbul, Paris... the richest places in the world are those closest to major waterways. Africa's bane is that with twice the size of Europe, it still has less shoreline because of its lack of inlets and harbors.