Except that ISIS states that they want to take jihad to the US and bring Sharia to the US, the Taliban has no such goal. ISIS is much more like Al Qaeda. The fact that ISIS and Al Qaeda may be hostile to each other is rather meaningless, they are "brothers" in many ways. Much like Hitler and Stalin, who were "brothers" that killed millions (including their own people) to achieve their political goals and wanted their neighbors territory to exploit, allied with each other at times to do so and tried to kill each other at other times to do so.
Obama is behaving like a politician unable to get his head out of the political dogma of the 2003 left. Unable to see the world has changed and the 2003 dogma obsolete. See http://news.slashdot.org/comme... for an explanation.
"Panetta also says that decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served. Not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual US force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort "created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed.""
The problem is that Obama's head in stuck in 2003. In 2003 the al qaeda types were not in Iraq. However in 2006 they were and proto-ISIS was defeated by US troops and Sunni forces in the Anbar Awakening. And in 2011 Obama's head was so stuck in the 2003 anti-war rhetoric and politics he could not accept that the situation was now radically different in Iraq and that a residual US force was needed. Al qaeda had migrated out of Afghanistan, they were active and recruiting in Iraq. Obama just wanted to be out of Iraq completely, to be rid of it. The Iraqi's initial resistance to immunity for US forces was the perfect excuse. The Iraqis always start negotiations by refusing immunity and then as the US increases its offer the Iraqis agree to immunity. This happened in previous agreements, saying no to immunity is just a negotiating tactic.
Obama has said that the al qaeda types are the real enemy, the real fight, the guys we should have never taken our focus off of. And yet he is doing exactly this. We didn't go into Afghanistan for the Taliban, we went in after al qaeda. The Taliban merely inserted themselves into this fight by continuing to offer safe haven and protection to al qaeda after 9/11. If the al qaeda types are in Afghanistan that is where the fight is, if in Sudan that is where the fight is, if in Africa that is where the fight is, and if in Iraq that too is where the fight is. The mistakes of 2003 are irrelevant, the politics of 2003 is obsolete, if al qaeda is in Iraq that is where the fight is.
"Lennart, I knew Hans Reiser. Hans Reiser was a friend of mine. Lennart Poettering, you're no Hans Reiser."
For those that don't get the above:
"Hans Thomas Reiser is an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, and convicted murderer. He is the creator and primary developer of the ReiserFS computer file system, which is contained within the Linux kernel... Reiser was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife, Nina Reiser, who disappeared in September 2006. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree murder, as part of a settlement agreement that included disclosing the location of his wife's body, revealed to be in a shallow grave near the couple's home." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
"Miltia" means all able bodied males of a certain age range. Matter of fact such a definition exists in federal law today.
Militia means whatever the individual states dictate.
Apologies for not being clear but what I described above was the "Federal Militia". A person who has never been in the military may still be considered a member of both the inactive federal militia and the inactive state militia. Either the federal or state government could conceivably call them to service.
They, however, have such a strong emotional investment (fear, in this case) in their position that they will never be made to see the truth clearly and objectively, no matter what words you say to them.
Its not simply fear. Scapegoating may be a bigger factor. By blaming the "gun" for social problems they don't have to admit that their favorite social policies have utterly failed, possibly even made things worse. They need a scapegoat to maintain their denial of their failure, the "gun" is so convenient in this scapegoat role. It only needs simplistic and superficial logic to accept as the culprit.
In what way is a semi automatic rifle with no serial number consistent with a well regulated militia?
In the context of the time "well regulated" meant practiced to a level to be useful. A private citizen possessing a firearm and being practiced enough would be considered "well regulated". Showing up on the town commons and drilling under the direction of a state appointed officer was not required. Most militiamen of the day did no such thing. They merely showed up armed during an emergency.
"Miltia" means all able bodied males of a certain age range. Matter of fact such a definition exists in federal law today. And even this current definition explicitly indicates that the national guard or other military service is *not* required. Like the military reserves, the militia has an inactive component that is not required to show up anywhere and formally train. This automatically being in the "militia" seems to be the legal basis for conscription since this law allows the President to call the militia to active service under regular military command.
Because in the rest of the world, cops and soldiers are the only ones walking around with weapons, and the only places where people walk around with weapons have generally degraded into a fairly lawless state.
Like Switzerland, where target shooting is a fairly popular sport, as it is in the U.S? I believe in Switzerland hundreds of thousands of civilians even possess what would in certain US jurisdictions be considered "assault weapons", i.e. magazine fed semi-automatic rifles.These numbers do not include actually military weapons in private residences of reservists, the previous refers to actual privately owned firearms.
When things degrade into a lawless state, the private ownership of firearms is the prior state probably had little to nothing to do with the decline.
So whether a state exists as lawful and civilized, or fails and degrades into lawlessness, seems not to be determined by the private ownership of firearms.
Obligatory postscript: Since I compared the US and Switzerland it should be noted that Switzerland does have effective background checks, required training, and required safe storage. Three things that if implemented in the US would probably drastically reduce firearms related deaths. We even have the infrastructure for the training, the hunter safety classes in all states are mostly general firearms safety. Drop the few hunting topics from these classes and we would have general purpose firearms safety training.
I love how these folks think that civilization is created when people are ready to kill each other at a moment's notice.
Rough men willing to do violence don't necessarily create civilization but they certainly maintain it. Pacifists can only exist where there are non-pacifists willing to protect them, or they exist in total isolation. However history shows that when that isolation ends they become victims.
As Chinese economy grows, so does its middle class. As its middle class grows, it demands more democratic reforms and more government responsibility - ultimately, a way to better China, for both its people and its neighbors.
That was the Nixon/Kissinger theory of the 1960s/70s. It was used to cut China all sort of political and economic slack. It was proven wrong by the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.
So if you want a better China, you should do the exact opposite of what you're doing.
No. If you want a better China then the US should treat China as China treats the US. Have reciprocal economic and trade policies, punitive measures for egregious behavior,... No more cutting them slack hoping they will moderate over time, no more treating them like they are an impoverished developing nation,... To create an environment where only respect for human rights and the rule of law is necessary. Free trade requires that trade also be fair.
And before someone starts with all the US debt they own. They need those US bonds to manipulate their currency to create a huge built-in discount for Chinese goods and services. To stop buying US bonds, or to sell their currently held bonds, would cause their currency to rise. Their artificially low currency is the real key to their global success, not low wages. They are as dependent on their US bonds as we are.
All that would do is keep them from using CS or flash bangs.
No, in various jurisdictions they would also not have "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. Which they basically have nowadays purely for intimidation, not any tactical need. They can have a rifle that looks like an ordinary semi-auto deer rifle, they can have 10-round magazines. Which is basically what they did when they were spending their own department's money pre-911. Pre-911 my local Sheriff's department had a 12-guage Remington 870 shotgun and a Ruger Mini-14 rifle with a 20-round magazine in patrol cars, the county had sizable rural sections so occasionally they needed a little more range than the shotgun provided. They considered M-16/M-4 but they determined the Mini-14 with a high capacity magazine had the exact same performance at half the price. Once the federal money and surplus became available post-911 they switched to M-4 since they were now free/cheaper.
At the cost of ensuring any attempt to enforce the law results in a massive and relatively even firefight that is likely to result in a whole lot more blood spilled?
You are woefully misinformed. It won't be even. Tactics, training and skill will give law enforcement the edge.
Plus the semi-auto high powered rifles you see law enforcement carrying on the TV, they are legal for civilians in most jurisdictions. Keep in mind that even in jurisdictions with "assault weapon" bans these are nearly always based on cosmetics, these bans are "placebos" that make some feel good but factually accomplish nothing since functionally equivalent substitutes are still available. Various hunting and target shooting rifles are are semi-auto and fire the exact same ammunition as the M-16/M-4. Before all the post-911 giveaways many police departments would purchase the civilian semi-autos rather than M-16/M-4. Exact same functionality, half the price.
Keep in mind that "assault weapon" and regular civilian rifles are functionally identical. Put a 5-round magazine into the M-16 and it is has the exact same performance as popular deer rifles. Put a 30-round magazine into various deer riles and they have the exact same performance as the M-4 you see police carrying on TV. Many departments did the later before pre-911 giveaways. They only used M-16/M-4 for the SWAT team, and that had more to do with intimidation because of the "look" of the rifle.
Sort of... only allow police to have firearms that civilians are allowed to have. Solves two problems. The militarization of police and the disarming of the civilian populace.
People who left their country of origin say very little about those of those who stayed behind.
On second thought, no. That is also pure unsubstantiated speculation. The two examples I referred to were in their 20s when they emigrated and their work ethic predated their arrival in the US. It was not something that they adapted to, it was something they brought with them. As immigrants to the US have been doing for centuries. Well, except for a few British gentlemen who had to learn how to work hard at Jamestown several centuries ago.
People who left their country of origin say very little about those of those who stayed behind.
Do I really need to mention for a third time my great-grandfather who stayed behind and has the same work ethic as my grandfather who emigrated has?
Germany outproduces the Mediterranean countries. This is a fact. Spin it however you want, with whatever anecdotal examples you choose, you can't change the raw numbers.
Actually you are doing the spinning. The disagreement is not about what country has a more productive economy. The debate is over the reasons, you claimed it was culture and work ethic. You speculation on that matter is wrong.
Really, my born and raised in Italy and emigrated to the US at age 20 grandfather has a work ethic that a very conservative American would consider exemplary.
One of my friends growing up, his father was born and raised in Greece. He emigrated to the US in his early 20s also. He seemed to share a work ethic and some other traits with my grandfather.
You do realize that nothing you said has any bearing on my point, right?
Culture is local, not ethnic.
You do realize that my grandfather and my friend's father were born and raised in Italy and Greece, right? That they did not emigrate to the US until they were 20+ years old, right? That they brought their Italian and Greek culture with them to the US, right? That my great-grandfather never left Italy, right?
Well, that's not true either, but you should catch my meaning. It's an entirely different pace of life in the Mediterranean Countries. You can get a similar culture shock if you travel from New York City to New Orleans, and The Big Easy is positively fast paced when compared to Italy, Spain, or Greece.
Yes, but a pace-of-life thing like sitting down for a nice long meal doesn't mean they are incapable of working quite hard when not at the dinner table.
Its a welfare state government not the national culture that screws things up.
Then why isn't Finland broke and begging Germany for bailouts? Finland isn't going to bring the Euro down. The aforementioned countries just may.....
The government is not as corrupt and incompetent as say Greece with respect to finance.
... Of course, it's not Germany's fault they're so much more productive than the rest of Europe. Ever been to Italy, Greece, or Spain? The "work ethic" in those cultures is utterly foreign to an American, never mind a German...
Really, my born and raised in Italy and emigrated to the US at age 20 grandfather has a work ethic that a very conservative American would consider exemplary. And Italian culture is not gone from his house as my father and us visiting grandchildren can attest. If you are working hard or studying hard he is kind and generous, slack off and you will hear about it. And the expectation level is not fixed, if you were lucky enough to be stronger or smarter than average then expectation are increased. He runs his house and raised his kids pretty much like his father. When visiting Italy I've seen my 90 year old great-grandfather tending his orchard. When my grandfather says to him, hey your 90 years old, take it easy. My great-grandfather replies that he'll take it easy when he's dead, that working keeps him healthy.
One of my friends growing up, his father was born and raised in Greece. He emigrated to the US in his early 20s also. He seemed to share a work ethic and some other traits with my grandfather. Strict house, exemplary work ethic, generous to family and friends who lived up to his expectations.
Don't confuse culture with the politics of the day. Its a welfare state government not the national culture that screws things up.
With apologies to various political hacks in the judiciary, corporations are not people...
Actually the U.S. Supreme Court did *not* say that corporations are people. What the court actually said is that *groups of people* have the same rights as individual people, and that the nature of that group -- corporation, labor union, activist group, etc -- does not matter.
I apologize of actually reading the court decision rather than relying on the characterization of it by the talking heads on TV.
What specific policy positions taken by the current Democratic Party do you feel are "radical left"?
You are moving the goal post. The actual conversation is that the "progressive" label is being co-opted by the radical left. The California state legislature offers some good examples. Absolute control by the Democratic party for decades and unlikely to change, a strong tolerance and occasional embrace of its more radical elements. One example would be a ban on civilian ownership of firearms. I'm in California, some Democratic state legislators are literally behind such legislation each and every year. They consider this a regular every-day "progressive" position.
I'm getting really tired of this shitty argument. We currently have a system in which rich people and corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts of money to all political candidates, essentially buying them all out and you insist that the problem is with the voters. When every candidate is bought, there is no one left representing US! Stop acting like there is always a perfect candidate and somehow we pick the wrong one 100% of the time.
If anyone has a shitty argument it is you. Votes are politics true currency, money is just a tool to influence voters in order to get their *vote*.
A 1% has *one* vote. A 99% has *one* vote. The 99% have the power but they squander it, to believe otherwise is to be a denier of reality like climate deniers, to let politics blind oneself to reality.
Look at the two most powerful lobbying groups in the country, the AARP and the NRA. They have so much power not because of political campaign contribution but because ***their members show up on election day*** highly motivated to vote based on a single issue. Their opponents often fail to understand this, think it is simply political contributions, and in the NRA case raise huge amounts of money for anti-gun groups and then fail and fail again.
Politicians value votes beyond all other things. It is votes that put them into office and keep them in office. The secondary nature of money is easily illustrated. No amount of money spent on TV and web ads by Bloomberg will convince NRA member to vote in favor of restricting guns. No amount of money spent on TV and web ads by the Koch brothers will convince Occupy Wall Street members to vote against banking restrictions. Only the ignorant or ambivalent voter is persuaded.
To deny that the real issue is the ignorant/ambivalent voter is to doom one's efforts at reform. Only when the 99% insists on politicians representing their interests, and voting out those who do not, will politicians change their behavior. Reelections communicates to politicians that their actions are OK with voters.
Voters *are* communicating to politicians that it is OK to cash in. Until *voters" say otherwise nothing will change. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody knows Hans Reiser. I'm impressed by the Dan Quayle connection: "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
No they don't, for the typical slashdot reader Hans is more of a Dan Quayle than a Jack Kennedy in terms of recognition.
Except that ISIS states that they want to take jihad to the US and bring Sharia to the US, the Taliban has no such goal. ISIS is much more like Al Qaeda. The fact that ISIS and Al Qaeda may be hostile to each other is rather meaningless, they are "brothers" in many ways. Much like Hitler and Stalin, who were "brothers" that killed millions (including their own people) to achieve their political goals and wanted their neighbors territory to exploit, allied with each other at times to do so and tried to kill each other at other times to do so.
Obama is behaving like a politician unable to get his head out of the political dogma of the 2003 left. Unable to see the world has changed and the 2003 dogma obsolete. See http://news.slashdot.org/comme... for an explanation.
"Panetta also says that decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served. Not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual US force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort "created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed.""
The problem is that Obama's head in stuck in 2003. In 2003 the al qaeda types were not in Iraq. However in 2006 they were and proto-ISIS was defeated by US troops and Sunni forces in the Anbar Awakening. And in 2011 Obama's head was so stuck in the 2003 anti-war rhetoric and politics he could not accept that the situation was now radically different in Iraq and that a residual US force was needed. Al qaeda had migrated out of Afghanistan, they were active and recruiting in Iraq. Obama just wanted to be out of Iraq completely, to be rid of it. The Iraqi's initial resistance to immunity for US forces was the perfect excuse. The Iraqis always start negotiations by refusing immunity and then as the US increases its offer the Iraqis agree to immunity. This happened in previous agreements, saying no to immunity is just a negotiating tactic.
Obama has said that the al qaeda types are the real enemy, the real fight, the guys we should have never taken our focus off of. And yet he is doing exactly this. We didn't go into Afghanistan for the Taliban, we went in after al qaeda. The Taliban merely inserted themselves into this fight by continuing to offer safe haven and protection to al qaeda after 9/11. If the al qaeda types are in Afghanistan that is where the fight is, if in Sudan that is where the fight is, if in Africa that is where the fight is, and if in Iraq that too is where the fight is. The mistakes of 2003 are irrelevant, the politics of 2003 is obsolete, if al qaeda is in Iraq that is where the fight is.
"Lennart, I knew Hans Reiser. Hans Reiser was a friend of mine. Lennart Poettering, you're no Hans Reiser."
For those that don't get the above: ... Reiser was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife, Nina Reiser, who disappeared in September 2006. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree murder, as part of a settlement agreement that included disclosing the location of his wife's body, revealed to be in a shallow grave near the couple's home."
"Hans Thomas Reiser is an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, and convicted murderer. He is the creator and primary developer of the ReiserFS computer file system, which is contained within the Linux kernel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
"Miltia" means all able bodied males of a certain age range. Matter of fact such a definition exists in federal law today.
Militia means whatever the individual states dictate.
Apologies for not being clear but what I described above was the "Federal Militia". A person who has never been in the military may still be considered a member of both the inactive federal militia and the inactive state militia. Either the federal or state government could conceivably call them to service.
Before the digital age how did the police ever mange to protect the children?
They, however, have such a strong emotional investment (fear, in this case) in their position that they will never be made to see the truth clearly and objectively, no matter what words you say to them.
Its not simply fear. Scapegoating may be a bigger factor. By blaming the "gun" for social problems they don't have to admit that their favorite social policies have utterly failed, possibly even made things worse. They need a scapegoat to maintain their denial of their failure, the "gun" is so convenient in this scapegoat role. It only needs simplistic and superficial logic to accept as the culprit.
In what way is a semi automatic rifle with no serial number consistent with a well regulated militia?
In the context of the time "well regulated" meant practiced to a level to be useful. A private citizen possessing a firearm and being practiced enough would be considered "well regulated". Showing up on the town commons and drilling under the direction of a state appointed officer was not required. Most militiamen of the day did no such thing. They merely showed up armed during an emergency.
"Miltia" means all able bodied males of a certain age range. Matter of fact such a definition exists in federal law today. And even this current definition explicitly indicates that the national guard or other military service is *not* required. Like the military reserves, the militia has an inactive component that is not required to show up anywhere and formally train. This automatically being in the "militia" seems to be the legal basis for conscription since this law allows the President to call the militia to active service under regular military command.
Because in the rest of the world, cops and soldiers are the only ones walking around with weapons, and the only places where people walk around with weapons have generally degraded into a fairly lawless state.
Like Switzerland, where target shooting is a fairly popular sport, as it is in the U.S? I believe in Switzerland hundreds of thousands of civilians even possess what would in certain US jurisdictions be considered "assault weapons", i.e. magazine fed semi-automatic rifles.These numbers do not include actually military weapons in private residences of reservists, the previous refers to actual privately owned firearms.
When things degrade into a lawless state, the private ownership of firearms is the prior state probably had little to nothing to do with the decline.
So whether a state exists as lawful and civilized, or fails and degrades into lawlessness, seems not to be determined by the private ownership of firearms.
Obligatory postscript: Since I compared the US and Switzerland it should be noted that Switzerland does have effective background checks, required training, and required safe storage. Three things that if implemented in the US would probably drastically reduce firearms related deaths. We even have the infrastructure for the training, the hunter safety classes in all states are mostly general firearms safety. Drop the few hunting topics from these classes and we would have general purpose firearms safety training.
I love how these folks think that civilization is created when people are ready to kill each other at a moment's notice.
Rough men willing to do violence don't necessarily create civilization but they certainly maintain it. Pacifists can only exist where there are non-pacifists willing to protect them, or they exist in total isolation. However history shows that when that isolation ends they become victims.
As Chinese economy grows, so does its middle class. As its middle class grows, it demands more democratic reforms and more government responsibility - ultimately, a way to better China, for both its people and its neighbors.
That was the Nixon/Kissinger theory of the 1960s/70s. It was used to cut China all sort of political and economic slack. It was proven wrong by the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.
So if you want a better China, you should do the exact opposite of what you're doing.
No. If you want a better China then the US should treat China as China treats the US. Have reciprocal economic and trade policies, punitive measures for egregious behavior, ... No more cutting them slack hoping they will moderate over time, no more treating them like they are an impoverished developing nation, ... To create an environment where only respect for human rights and the rule of law is necessary. Free trade requires that trade also be fair.
And before someone starts with all the US debt they own. They need those US bonds to manipulate their currency to create a huge built-in discount for Chinese goods and services. To stop buying US bonds, or to sell their currently held bonds, would cause their currency to rise. Their artificially low currency is the real key to their global success, not low wages. They are as dependent on their US bonds as we are.
All that would do is keep them from using CS or flash bangs.
No, in various jurisdictions they would also not have "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. Which they basically have nowadays purely for intimidation, not any tactical need. They can have a rifle that looks like an ordinary semi-auto deer rifle, they can have 10-round magazines. Which is basically what they did when they were spending their own department's money pre-911. Pre-911 my local Sheriff's department had a 12-guage Remington 870 shotgun and a Ruger Mini-14 rifle with a 20-round magazine in patrol cars, the county had sizable rural sections so occasionally they needed a little more range than the shotgun provided. They considered M-16/M-4 but they determined the Mini-14 with a high capacity magazine had the exact same performance at half the price. Once the federal money and surplus became available post-911 they switched to M-4 since they were now free/cheaper.
Plus they would be prohibited from full-auto.
At the cost of ensuring any attempt to enforce the law results in a massive and relatively even firefight that is likely to result in a whole lot more blood spilled?
You are woefully misinformed. It won't be even. Tactics, training and skill will give law enforcement the edge.
Plus the semi-auto high powered rifles you see law enforcement carrying on the TV, they are legal for civilians in most jurisdictions. Keep in mind that even in jurisdictions with "assault weapon" bans these are nearly always based on cosmetics, these bans are "placebos" that make some feel good but factually accomplish nothing since functionally equivalent substitutes are still available. Various hunting and target shooting rifles are are semi-auto and fire the exact same ammunition as the M-16/M-4. Before all the post-911 giveaways many police departments would purchase the civilian semi-autos rather than M-16/M-4. Exact same functionality, half the price.
Keep in mind that "assault weapon" and regular civilian rifles are functionally identical. Put a 5-round magazine into the M-16 and it is has the exact same performance as popular deer rifles. Put a 30-round magazine into various deer riles and they have the exact same performance as the M-4 you see police carrying on TV. Many departments did the later before pre-911 giveaways. They only used M-16/M-4 for the SWAT team, and that had more to do with intimidation because of the "look" of the rifle.
Sort of ... only allow police to have firearms that civilians are allowed to have. Solves two problems. The militarization of police and the disarming of the civilian populace.
No it's not. Inaccurate date is worse than none.
This data offered was not inaccurate. The observations were factually correct.
People who left their country of origin say very little about those of those who stayed behind.
On second thought, no. That is also pure unsubstantiated speculation. The two examples I referred to were in their 20s when they emigrated and their work ethic predated their arrival in the US. It was not something that they adapted to, it was something they brought with them. As immigrants to the US have been doing for centuries. Well, except for a few British gentlemen who had to learn how to work hard at Jamestown several centuries ago.
Your sample, if you can even call it that, is suffering from selection bias.
Even so its better than an opinion based on a sample of zero as the GP offers.
People who left their country of origin say very little about those of those who stayed behind.
Do I really need to mention for a third time my great-grandfather who stayed behind and has the same work ethic as my grandfather who emigrated has?
Germany outproduces the Mediterranean countries. This is a fact. Spin it however you want, with whatever anecdotal examples you choose, you can't change the raw numbers.
Actually you are doing the spinning. The disagreement is not about what country has a more productive economy. The debate is over the reasons, you claimed it was culture and work ethic. You speculation on that matter is wrong.
Really, my born and raised in Italy and emigrated to the US at age 20 grandfather has a work ethic that a very conservative American would consider exemplary.
One of my friends growing up, his father was born and raised in Greece. He emigrated to the US in his early 20s also. He seemed to share a work ethic and some other traits with my grandfather.
You do realize that nothing you said has any bearing on my point, right? Culture is local, not ethnic.
You do realize that my grandfather and my friend's father were born and raised in Italy and Greece, right? That they did not emigrate to the US until they were 20+ years old, right? That they brought their Italian and Greek culture with them to the US, right? That my great-grandfather never left Italy, right?
Well, that's not true either, but you should catch my meaning. It's an entirely different pace of life in the Mediterranean Countries. You can get a similar culture shock if you travel from New York City to New Orleans, and The Big Easy is positively fast paced when compared to Italy, Spain, or Greece.
Yes, but a pace-of-life thing like sitting down for a nice long meal doesn't mean they are incapable of working quite hard when not at the dinner table.
Its a welfare state government not the national culture that screws things up.
Then why isn't Finland broke and begging Germany for bailouts? Finland isn't going to bring the Euro down. The aforementioned countries just may.....
The government is not as corrupt and incompetent as say Greece with respect to finance.
... Of course, it's not Germany's fault they're so much more productive than the rest of Europe. Ever been to Italy, Greece, or Spain? The "work ethic" in those cultures is utterly foreign to an American, never mind a German ...
Really, my born and raised in Italy and emigrated to the US at age 20 grandfather has a work ethic that a very conservative American would consider exemplary. And Italian culture is not gone from his house as my father and us visiting grandchildren can attest. If you are working hard or studying hard he is kind and generous, slack off and you will hear about it. And the expectation level is not fixed, if you were lucky enough to be stronger or smarter than average then expectation are increased. He runs his house and raised his kids pretty much like his father. When visiting Italy I've seen my 90 year old great-grandfather tending his orchard. When my grandfather says to him, hey your 90 years old, take it easy. My great-grandfather replies that he'll take it easy when he's dead, that working keeps him healthy.
One of my friends growing up, his father was born and raised in Greece. He emigrated to the US in his early 20s also. He seemed to share a work ethic and some other traits with my grandfather. Strict house, exemplary work ethic, generous to family and friends who lived up to his expectations.
Don't confuse culture with the politics of the day. Its a welfare state government not the national culture that screws things up.
Amusingly enough, "corporation" comes from latin word meaning a "group of people"... so where's the difference?
Latin is not to be taken literally in modern english. For example to decimate does not mean we will kill 10%. :-)
With apologies to various political hacks in the judiciary, corporations are not people ...
Actually the U.S. Supreme Court did *not* say that corporations are people. What the court actually said is that *groups of people* have the same rights as individual people, and that the nature of that group -- corporation, labor union, activist group, etc -- does not matter.
I apologize of actually reading the court decision rather than relying on the characterization of it by the talking heads on TV.
What specific policy positions taken by the current Democratic Party do you feel are "radical left"?
You are moving the goal post. The actual conversation is that the "progressive" label is being co-opted by the radical left. The California state legislature offers some good examples. Absolute control by the Democratic party for decades and unlikely to change, a strong tolerance and occasional embrace of its more radical elements. One example would be a ban on civilian ownership of firearms. I'm in California, some Democratic state legislators are literally behind such legislation each and every year. They consider this a regular every-day "progressive" position.
I'm getting really tired of this shitty argument. We currently have a system in which rich people and corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts of money to all political candidates, essentially buying them all out and you insist that the problem is with the voters. When every candidate is bought, there is no one left representing US! Stop acting like there is always a perfect candidate and somehow we pick the wrong one 100% of the time.
If anyone has a shitty argument it is you. Votes are politics true currency, money is just a tool to influence voters in order to get their *vote*.
A 1% has *one* vote. A 99% has *one* vote. The 99% have the power but they squander it, to believe otherwise is to be a denier of reality like climate deniers, to let politics blind oneself to reality.
Look at the two most powerful lobbying groups in the country, the AARP and the NRA. They have so much power not because of political campaign contribution but because ***their members show up on election day*** highly motivated to vote based on a single issue. Their opponents often fail to understand this, think it is simply political contributions, and in the NRA case raise huge amounts of money for anti-gun groups and then fail and fail again.
Politicians value votes beyond all other things. It is votes that put them into office and keep them in office. The secondary nature of money is easily illustrated. No amount of money spent on TV and web ads by Bloomberg will convince NRA member to vote in favor of restricting guns. No amount of money spent on TV and web ads by the Koch brothers will convince Occupy Wall Street members to vote against banking restrictions. Only the ignorant or ambivalent voter is persuaded.
To deny that the real issue is the ignorant/ambivalent voter is to doom one's efforts at reform. Only when the 99% insists on politicians representing their interests, and voting out those who do not, will politicians change their behavior. Reelections communicates to politicians that their actions are OK with voters.
Voters *are* communicating to politicians that it is OK to cash in. Until *voters" say otherwise nothing will change. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.