Go read up on Rwanda or Rhodesia and then come back and talk about "benign" colonialism.
Everything is relative. Rhodesia, as bad as it was, was better than what Zimbabwe is today. Even though blacks were second class citizens, they at least had full bellies. Now, they have empty bellies, and unless they are cronies of Mugabe, they are still second class citizens. The skin color of their overlord has changed to a pigment more like the common man, but everything else has gotten worse. The anti-colonial movements of the 20th century, in their nativist zeal, destroyed anything that was good about colonialism and replaced it with ashes. You can pretty much positively track the decline of any post-colonial country with the level of effort they put in repudiating their colonial legacy. Pre-European contact African culture simply isn't tenable in the 21st century. The only historical roots that African countries have that can possibly help them cope with the world as it IS today (rather than what how we wish it were) is precisely that hated colonial legacy.
Look at Latin America, where the effects of the Spanish colonial methods still haunt the native and colonial populations to this day.
And the Spanish, as bad as they were, were a heck of a lot better than the Mayans or Aztecs. The Spanish conquered in pursuit of gold and profit. The Mayans and the Aztecs conquered in pursuit of bloody sacrifices.
Look at the American push into the West, not even two centuries ago (and by a modern republic no less), that lead to the dislocation or slaughter of perhaps millions of Native Americans.
You should read "Comanches: Destruction of a People". One of the points of the book is that, the further removed people were from American Indians, the more likely they were to view them idealistically and object to their subjugation. While the folks on the Texas frontier, who saw their relatives get their genitals burned off, their extremities burned off inch by inch at a time, and saw them flayed alive after their eyes had been gouged out and their arms and feet were burnt stubs were less idealistic. It was a brutal affair by both sides. Many tribes, like the Comanches, weren't simply defending their homes, but were antagonistic and aggressive raiders, and brutalized anyone that they came in contact with, be it Spanish settlers, German settlers, or other indian tribes.
The sweep of history is one of ruination of the weak. Europeans didn't invent it, and the enlightenment didn't end it.
While seriously defective individuals, at least from a genetic perspective, are able to lead long lives in many cases because of technology and wealth, their reproductive success probably still isn't up to par. And that's really what fitness measures, not survivability, but survivability passed to subsequent generations. You could be the baddest lizard on the face of the planet, but if you eat all of your prospective mates, your fitness is effectively 0. And a lot of those "defective" genes exist for a reason. The gene for sickle cell anemia is the textbook example. Homozygous expressed, and you're dead from blood clots. Homozygous unexpressed, and you're dead from malaria. Heterozygous, and you have a competitive advantage compared to everyone else. Genetic fitness for an individual is more or less a dice roll.
I again recommend the Davis text. The claim that these regions advanced economically under colonialism is actually incorrect.
I'd argue that things have to be taken by a case by case basis. For example, Rhodesia was much better off under colonial white rule than Zimbabwe is today under "Bobby" Mugabe (but then again, that's Communism for you). South Africa, even though it's teetering over the abyss, is relatively better off compared to it's peers largely because of the contribution of the white Africans who live there. Look, I don't doubt that colonialism was horrible. What I'm saying is that it wasn't unprecendented or a European invention. Spain was a colony of the Arab Muslims for 800 years. Greece and the Balkans were colonized by the Turks for 600 years. Egypt was colonized by the Arabs, who managed to destroy just about every vestige of pre-Arab culture. Tibet is being colonized by the Han as we speak. In almost every case of colonization, the native population loses out. But the things that are rending Africa apart have almost nothing to do with colonization or imperialization. It's an accumulation of things like extremely inept and corrupt leadership, bad choices, bad luck, tribalism, and the clash of primitive societies with modernity (the rapidity of which destroys existing stabilizing cultural institutions without providing an adequate replacement). Throw in things like the decimation by HIV, and you have a big mess, none of which is caused by the West or curable by the West. In 1955, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world and the recent scene of massive bloodshed due to the Korean war. Quite a few nations in Africa were better off, and some even had a functional, stable government courtesy of the British. South Korea had it's affairs meddled with every bit as much as the countries in Africa, but whereas South Korea made the right choices, African countries did not. Africa isn't an unwilling and unwitting victim here.
It can be argued that the Communist societies also "recognized their own colonialism,"
That's rich, since the Communists spread by means indistinguishable from imperialism. I can argue that the moon is made of blue cheese, but that doesn't make it true.
One does not need to get mythical and utopian about the past to recognize how deeply and profoundly fucked up colonialism and imperialism were.
However, one DOES have to ignore the vast majority of human history where colonialism and imperialism was practiced by anyone with power, frequently with Europeans as the victims. The Arabs were the first great colonizers and imperial powers in Africa. They were the main engine behind the slave trade in Africa. Not the West. The Mongols raped and pillaged their way through Asia all the way to Poland and Hungary, and then the vestiges of that empire hung around for another 300 years extracting tribute from every country, nation, and city state within horse riding range. They made a wasteland of Russia and Iraq and Iran. In fact, Iraq never really recovered from the Mongol invasions. But all we here about is how everything is the West's fault. As bad as colonialism was, and it was bad, it was the best thing that ever happened to Africa. It's only been under the benign stewardship of the European powers that any sort of rule of law existed in Africa, and when they left, so did the rule of law and the stability that goes along with it.
We are descended from some of the worst excesses of imperialist colonialism ever. In most imperial adventures, countries economically exploited other natives. I think that we were the only people to wipe ours completely out over a whole continent.
Oh really? I wonder whatever happened to the Neanderthals? Or how about the non-Arabs in Egypt? You know, the ones that used to be Greco-Egyptian prior to the Arab invasions? The West didn't invent colonialism, genocide, or slavery, but is blamed for all simply by virtue of it's success. Funny enough, it's the West that was the first society to recognize it's own colonialism, genocide, and slavery as being morally wrong and stopped from it's own free will. Slavery is still de facto legal in Saudi Arabia and China. Genocide is ongoing in Darfur and Tibet. Neither one of those are because of the West. Africa is fucked up because Africa is fucked up. Yes, a tautology I know, but the fact remains that Africa was a mess before colonialism, improved slightly under colonialism, and lapsed back into tribalism as soon as the European governments fled.
Yes. It's all the West's fault. Sub-Saharan Africa was a tranquil paradise where brother loved brother and stranger loved stranger before the evil white man appeared and destroyed it's advanced technological civilizations and enslaved the men and raped the womyn.
Game theory suggests that the advocate of the less viable candidate has an incentive to cheat.
For example lets say you are a Nader supporter in Florida. Someone in New York offers to trade you a Nader vote in NY for a Gore vote in FL. As a Nader supporter, you want more Nader votes regardless. So you'll pull the lever for Nader in FL (other party has no way of knowing whether or not you followed through) anyway. And, if the person in NY votes for Nader, well, you just helped Nader out in NY also.
As a Texas resident, the Texas redistricting "scandal" wasn't really much of one. Texas has leaned heavily to the right for the last 20 years, but due to earlier Democratic redistricting every bit as onerous as the redistricting that Republicans were attempted (and actually more so), it's national Congressional delegation was split evenly Republican and Democratic, when actual voting patterns are closer to 65/35 in favor of Republicans. As Republicans captured and held on to state legislatures, Democrats suddenly woke up to the "evils" of redistricting and a subsequent media campaign ensued. Never mind that Democrats have been abusing redistricting power since the New Deal.
Yeah, because suppressing the logic is the way to win the argument
What logic is being suppressed? Certainly not yours, since you don't have any. There have been several documented extinction level impacts on the Earth, and a whole lot of others that, while not extinction level, would cause civilization to have a rather bad day. The only thing illogical is your insistence that a modest effort to cataloguing the threats and having a plan to deal with them is a waste of money or a sneaky way of weaponizing space.
Seriously dude, you're a deluded idiot. Karl Marx made up the word "capitalism", and the invention, as he knew it, was largely an English creation.
The trans-Atlantic slave trade was outlawed in the United States by 1798. Demand for slaves from Africa after 1800 came largely from Cuba and Brazil. Which you might be surprised to find, are not in the United States. And those two countries didn't outlaw slavery until 1880, 15 years after 500,000 Americans died over the issue.
Of course - the Star Wars project never succeeded. But it demonstrated the US's goal to weaponise space.
Guess what. Space is going to weaponized regardless of what the US does. SDI may have had something to do with the 40,000 nuclear warheads that the USSR was pointing at us.
Why not - the US's industrial revolution began by stealing patented technology from England without ever repaying the original inventors. In fact the US still proudly celebrates that fact. Go look up Lowell, Massachusetts - there are museums there that showcase the stolen technology.
Guess what. I don't care about some patent infringement that happened 150 years ago.
Remember why the US abolished slavery? The hope was that the slaves would suddenly join their army and help fight against the rebel southern states. Most abolitionists in the northern states didn't want Africans in the US - they wanted to ship the freed slaves back to Africa. This is how Liberia was founded.
Guess which two countries were responsible for eliminating the overseas slave trade? The UK and the United States. Not a single other country in the world stepped up and decided to do anything about slavery. So, really, stuff it.
Not to mention that in recent times, the US has simply renamed a slave to an "H1-B visa holder".
You really are deluded. I work with a lot of H1Bs. They make good money, and can quit any time they want. We don't even beat them. Slavery indeed.
And if you disagree that the US should have a giant space laser, then you're a "potential terrorist" and you can bet your village will burn.
And if anyone thinks this won't happen, just think back to the Star Wars project.
Yeah, I remember all those villages being burned up as a result of the Star Wars project. That was horrible. We certainly don't want to go down that road again. We should turn the United States into a pastoral agrarian country where we will put all the world's immigrants as restitution for the United States being successful, rich, and oh yeah, slavery was their fault too. And if, say China should get solar power up first, they should burn the US! Yah! That's the ticket.
When, eventually, there is a Democrat in the White House, don't expect any meaningful rollback.
Neither party is likely to renounce useful tools.
Exactly. It wasn't an accident that confidential files of Republican Congressmen ended up in Hillary's safe in violation of the law. Ever since Hoover got the private ear of the office of POTUS, Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have reveled in reading other people's private mail and using that information to further advantage their political position. One can make an argument that at least the Bush administration is ostensibly doing it for national security reasons, rather than Hillary's vengedetta campaign against the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
What part of sovereign nation do you not understand?
Also, what part of "modern warfare practices" do we not adhere to? The US is the trendsetter on modern warfare practices. Oh, I gotcha, you mean the absurb legal constraints that the wcc tries to put on war fighting, like not shooting back at mosques when enemy fire is coming from those mosques. Thanks, but no thanks. You can keep your stupid rules that no one follows anyway.
By that guys definition, a machete head slice would be less violent than a blast from a taser, because the further away an action is, the more violent it is.
The USA is the richest country in the world. We have too much money to deny opportunities to those who are willing to work hard and earn it. (Heard that one on NPR the other day.)
The US is the richest country in the world, but our wealth is very, very finite. And we are busy spending it as well as posting credit on our children's and future grandchildren's wealth (and their children beyond them). Even mainstream media has gotten around to saying that, if the Federal government used GAAP to account for the budget, we'd have a 2.5 trillion USD year deficit at the Federal level. Why do I bring up the budget? Because illegal immigrants tend to be unskilled, low income immigrants who take about 4 to 5 generations to net out their tax outlays. We don't have 80 years to wait. The Federal government, at current rate, is going to be insolvent some time around 2017. Thats ten years from now. And yes, I know the Iraq war isn't helping things, but eventually it will end, as will our economic commitment to it. Social spending is a third rail in politics. Nothing mobilizes voters like taking away their benefits.
The current system is arbitrary and politically unmanageable. I'm not saying we should let 300 million immigrants in tomorrow, just saying that it's insanely hard to play by the rules.. especially when the powers that be "forget" about issuing thousands of greencards.
Not only is it insanely hard to play by the rules, you get screwed if you do. Case in point, H1B and other visa holders were not going to be eligible for the Z-visa. But illegal gang members were. This is sorta what you get when you "compromise". I'm fairly immigrant friendly (office is dominated by H1B's) and my fiance is Mexican-American but I'm irked at the economists and pro-business Republicans that hand-wave the economic costs of immigration (both legal and illegal) that is incurred by domestic labor, and the liberals and the left-wingers that insist on calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" and that think that "Give me your poor, your tired huddled masses" is a sane, rational national immigration policy. Unresticted immigration worked when there was a frontier to conquer. The frontier closed around 1890. I think a lot of "nativists" like myself are looking for an immigration policy that fits the needs of the American nation rather than the nexus of corporate interests and left-wing open border advocates.
Regarding vote fraud, the bottom line is, illegals vote. Illegally. And they overwhelmingly vote Democratic. And Democrats know this, and they know that illegal (and legal) immigration helps them, especially when we're talking about immigration from the third world. And for every Diebold, I can throw in a Daschle Reservation vote fraud or a Mayor Daley Machine at you. And I don't support it coming from "my" side any more than the other side. But when the other side supports policies that lead directly to illegal activity that helps them out, then one has to assume that there is tacit support of the outcome: illegal immigration and vote fraud.
As for the neocons, they are big-statists who happen to be "strong" on national defense. Things like the Constitution come in second place to empowering the central government. Attack them all you want.
Also, why is it against "national interest" to allow more legal immigrants? I'm afraid you lost me there.
The answer is "it depends". On the nature of the immigrants, the number of the immigrants, assimilation policies, social impact, etc. Immigration can help and it can hurt. It is not good in and of itself. Current immigration policies are mostly bad, and the recent "reform" attemp was simply more of the same, only at a faster pace.
I see what you did there. Put a statement out there that you claim to disagree with (and which isn't true, regarding every illegal being a murderer) and rely on the subliminal meaning to get the idea into people's heads that illegals are all lawless murdering scum. Well done.
You're an idiot. Just because you use slight of mouth techniques to "slip in subliminal meanings" doesn't mean everyone else does. My reference point for 4,000 murders is simple. That's 4,000 people that would be alive if we weren't playing host to 20 million illegal aliens. No more, no less. Document fraud and tax evasion, felonies when done by the average American citizen, are almost never prosecuted against illegal aliens and in fact Federal agencies are prevented from cooperating in this manner (ie, IRS is disallowed from forwarding SSN fraud information to ICE). And a whole lot of illegals are fully incorporated into the mainstream W2 economy.
You can't do 12 million of ANYTHING the way you do 5,000 of anything. We don't have the personnel, facilities, or will to deport 12 million people. We're talking about rounding up people like cattle (and treating them about as well). It's all a little too "Japanese-American internment camp" for me, thank you.
We certainly don't have the personnel or facilities to do it all at once. But that's the great thing about BORDER CONTROL. Once it's in place, you don't have to do it all at once. And the problem itself stabilizes instead of getting worse, year after year.
Nor is there a rational argument for how difficult it is to obtain legal status, so you can support your family back home AND pay taxes to support the social services you consume.
Sure there is. It's called national interest. The United States already lets in more legal immigrants than any other country in the world. We also let more immigrants naturalize than any other country, and unlike, say Mexico, naturalization confers full rights (except for POTUS and VPOTUS ability).
There are basically two arguments for invasion level immigration:
1) labor shortages
2) "it's the right thing to do" (emotional argument)
1. There is no labor shortage. There is simply a labor shortage at the prices industry is willing to pay.
2. There are 4.5 billion people who are worse off economically than the average Latino illegal immigrant into the United States. Where do you idiot left wingers want to draw the line? 50 million enough? 300 million? How about all of them? Or maybe just to the point where you guys have enough illegal gotten votes where you can scrub the Constitution?
Exactly. And so would the "Child Safety Protection Act" or the "Patriot Act". They always get cloaked with catchy marketing phrases that obscure and distort actual impact of the bill.
The big problem with the Medicaid/Medicare drug plan, of course, is that it's completely unfunded. It's a big sinking red inksplot of liability against the government's bottom line, and the government is already insolvent with respect to social spending if you take into account future liabilities. Adding more to those liabilities isn't a wise or sane decision.
We've had a Republican-controlled Executive and Legislative branch for 6 years, and an increasingly conservative SCOTUS as well, and you're going to try to tell me with a straight face that conservatives never get what they want?
You might want to re-read my post. I didn't say that "conservatives never get what they want". I said that compromise with liberals is wasted effort, because the only position that gets compromised is the conservative one, not the liberal or left-wing one. As for the Republican controlled Executive and Legislative branches, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me that it's been a pretty severe disappointment. Bush's big legislative achievements? "No child left behind" and the unfunded "Medicaid/Medicare drug plan". Neither one are really something that a conservative can wrap their arms around and feel all warm and fuzzy about.
As far as border security goes.. Fund it. Raise taxes if you have to. Until then, I don't want to hear it.
Sorry, did the 1st Amendment get abolished in between my post and yours? Hate to break it to you, but many aspects of border enforcement HAVE been funded. GDub has been dragging his feet on implementing them, however (see current approval ratings...you can't dip that low unless your base defects en masse).
On the one hand you've got all these "lawbreakers" who should be deported; on the other, you've got a cheap and easily exploitable labor pool.
Oh, I see now. You're one of those left wingers that think that all conservatives are alike, and get their 10-checklist playsheet from the evangelical church down the street. Hate to break it to you, but many of those illegals ARE breaking the law, and are breaking laws a lot more serious than crossing the border. Document fraud, drug trafficking, murder. Is every illegal alien a murderer? No, but upwards of 4,000 murders a year are committed by them (plus an equivilent number of deaths from drunk driving). Additionally, I'm not a big fan of indentured servitude as a solution to labor shortages or high labor prices. As for deporting 12,000,000 illegals, you do it the same way you deport 5,000 illegals. One person at a time, or by the busload. The grander idea is to stop the current invasion (anywhere from 1 to 10 million per year, depending on if you take the official lowball estimate or the high Border Patrol estimate) and then work on "attritting" out the remainder by making it more difficult to stay (by say, going after the folks that employ them). But yeah, it's kinda hard to deport "12 million" [sic] illegals when you have local obstruction like sanctuary cities and big business employer malfeasance working in conjunction with a corrupt Congress and an equally corrupt or out of touch Executive Branch.
There is NO rational argument to the amount of illegal immigration we are allowing in.
The problem with "compromise" is conservatives usually sacrifice their ideals in exchange for...nothing. "Comprehensive immigration reform" is good case in point. Ted Kennedy got just about everything he wanted, conservatives got that same old tired line about finally enforcing the border which was done in 1986, 1994, and 1996. If you are going to get the same result no matter what you do, you might as well at least make a stand on principle.
Except of course for the 45 Million Americans who cannot afford it and have no insurance.
Here's a little not-so-secret secret. Many of the 45 million uninsured Americans voluntarily choose not to have insurance even though they could afford it (for example, 20-somethings who choose to have $150 a month extra partying money).
The poor in America actually have insurance via medicaid. It's the largely the lower middle class that is screwed during any major medical event.
Amusingly enough, that's not entirely true. One of Moore's major points was that in the US, even if you have health insurance, they still won't pay for anything if they can find any excuse not to - and they put a lot of effort into finding excuses not to.
Sorry, I must've not been clear. If you are rich, you don't need insurance, or can afford good insurance. At which point you can afford top flight medical care from top flight doctors. I realize that most Americans (and yes, I'm one of them) fall into the "whatever my employer provides" bucket for insurance. Insurance companies, of course, have a built in incentive to deny claims...it increases their bottom line.
There are lots of problems with the US medical system. Lack of government involvment, however, really isn't one of them. There are a couple of no-brainers that would greatly improve things, however like: 1) let individuals buy insurance from out of state companies and 2) let individuals deduct insurance and other medical expenses from their end of year taxes (rather than, at best, the not-very-good Medical Savings Plan).
Slashdot Mirror
Go read up on Rwanda or Rhodesia and then come back and talk about "benign" colonialism.
Everything is relative. Rhodesia, as bad as it was, was better than what Zimbabwe is today. Even though blacks were second class citizens, they at least had full bellies. Now, they have empty bellies, and unless they are cronies of Mugabe, they are still second class citizens. The skin color of their overlord has changed to a pigment more like the common man, but everything else has gotten worse. The anti-colonial movements of the 20th century, in their nativist zeal, destroyed anything that was good about colonialism and replaced it with ashes. You can pretty much positively track the decline of any post-colonial country with the level of effort they put in repudiating their colonial legacy. Pre-European contact African culture simply isn't tenable in the 21st century. The only historical roots that African countries have that can possibly help them cope with the world as it IS today (rather than what how we wish it were) is precisely that hated colonial legacy. Look at Latin America, where the effects of the Spanish colonial methods still haunt the native and colonial populations to this day.
And the Spanish, as bad as they were, were a heck of a lot better than the Mayans or Aztecs. The Spanish conquered in pursuit of gold and profit. The Mayans and the Aztecs conquered in pursuit of bloody sacrifices.
Look at the American push into the West, not even two centuries ago (and by a modern republic no less), that lead to the dislocation or slaughter of perhaps millions of Native Americans.
You should read "Comanches: Destruction of a People". One of the points of the book is that, the further removed people were from American Indians, the more likely they were to view them idealistically and object to their subjugation. While the folks on the Texas frontier, who saw their relatives get their genitals burned off, their extremities burned off inch by inch at a time, and saw them flayed alive after their eyes had been gouged out and their arms and feet were burnt stubs were less idealistic. It was a brutal affair by both sides. Many tribes, like the Comanches, weren't simply defending their homes, but were antagonistic and aggressive raiders, and brutalized anyone that they came in contact with, be it Spanish settlers, German settlers, or other indian tribes.
The sweep of history is one of ruination of the weak. Europeans didn't invent it, and the enlightenment didn't end it.
While seriously defective individuals, at least from a genetic perspective, are able to lead long lives in many cases because of technology and wealth, their reproductive success probably still isn't up to par. And that's really what fitness measures, not survivability, but survivability passed to subsequent generations. You could be the baddest lizard on the face of the planet, but if you eat all of your prospective mates, your fitness is effectively 0. And a lot of those "defective" genes exist for a reason. The gene for sickle cell anemia is the textbook example. Homozygous expressed, and you're dead from blood clots. Homozygous unexpressed, and you're dead from malaria. Heterozygous, and you have a competitive advantage compared to everyone else. Genetic fitness for an individual is more or less a dice roll.
I again recommend the Davis text. The claim that these regions advanced economically under colonialism is actually incorrect.
I'd argue that things have to be taken by a case by case basis. For example, Rhodesia was much better off under colonial white rule than Zimbabwe is today under "Bobby" Mugabe (but then again, that's Communism for you). South Africa, even though it's teetering over the abyss, is relatively better off compared to it's peers largely because of the contribution of the white Africans who live there. Look, I don't doubt that colonialism was horrible. What I'm saying is that it wasn't unprecendented or a European invention. Spain was a colony of the Arab Muslims for 800 years. Greece and the Balkans were colonized by the Turks for 600 years. Egypt was colonized by the Arabs, who managed to destroy just about every vestige of pre-Arab culture. Tibet is being colonized by the Han as we speak. In almost every case of colonization, the native population loses out. But the things that are rending Africa apart have almost nothing to do with colonization or imperialization. It's an accumulation of things like extremely inept and corrupt leadership, bad choices, bad luck, tribalism, and the clash of primitive societies with modernity (the rapidity of which destroys existing stabilizing cultural institutions without providing an adequate replacement). Throw in things like the decimation by HIV, and you have a big mess, none of which is caused by the West or curable by the West. In 1955, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world and the recent scene of massive bloodshed due to the Korean war. Quite a few nations in Africa were better off, and some even had a functional, stable government courtesy of the British. South Korea had it's affairs meddled with every bit as much as the countries in Africa, but whereas South Korea made the right choices, African countries did not. Africa isn't an unwilling and unwitting victim here.
It can be argued that the Communist societies also "recognized their own colonialism,"
That's rich, since the Communists spread by means indistinguishable from imperialism. I can argue that the moon is made of blue cheese, but that doesn't make it true.
One does not need to get mythical and utopian about the past to recognize how deeply and profoundly fucked up colonialism and imperialism were.
However, one DOES have to ignore the vast majority of human history where colonialism and imperialism was practiced by anyone with power, frequently with Europeans as the victims. The Arabs were the first great colonizers and imperial powers in Africa. They were the main engine behind the slave trade in Africa. Not the West. The Mongols raped and pillaged their way through Asia all the way to Poland and Hungary, and then the vestiges of that empire hung around for another 300 years extracting tribute from every country, nation, and city state within horse riding range. They made a wasteland of Russia and Iraq and Iran. In fact, Iraq never really recovered from the Mongol invasions. But all we here about is how everything is the West's fault. As bad as colonialism was, and it was bad, it was the best thing that ever happened to Africa. It's only been under the benign stewardship of the European powers that any sort of rule of law existed in Africa, and when they left, so did the rule of law and the stability that goes along with it.
We are descended from some of the worst excesses of imperialist colonialism ever. In most imperial adventures, countries economically exploited other natives. I think that we were the only people to wipe ours completely out over a whole continent.
Oh really? I wonder whatever happened to the Neanderthals? Or how about the non-Arabs in Egypt? You know, the ones that used to be Greco-Egyptian prior to the Arab invasions? The West didn't invent colonialism, genocide, or slavery, but is blamed for all simply by virtue of it's success. Funny enough, it's the West that was the first society to recognize it's own colonialism, genocide, and slavery as being morally wrong and stopped from it's own free will. Slavery is still de facto legal in Saudi Arabia and China. Genocide is ongoing in Darfur and Tibet. Neither one of those are because of the West. Africa is fucked up because Africa is fucked up. Yes, a tautology I know, but the fact remains that Africa was a mess before colonialism, improved slightly under colonialism, and lapsed back into tribalism as soon as the European governments fled.
Yes. It's all the West's fault. Sub-Saharan Africa was a tranquil paradise where brother loved brother and stranger loved stranger before the evil white man appeared and destroyed it's advanced technological civilizations and enslaved the men and raped the womyn.
Game theory suggests that the advocate of the less viable candidate has an incentive to cheat.
For example lets say you are a Nader supporter in Florida. Someone in New York offers to trade you a Nader vote in NY for a Gore vote in FL. As a Nader supporter, you want more Nader votes regardless. So you'll pull the lever for Nader in FL (other party has no way of knowing whether or not you followed through) anyway. And, if the person in NY votes for Nader, well, you just helped Nader out in NY also.
As a Texas resident, the Texas redistricting "scandal" wasn't really much of one. Texas has leaned heavily to the right for the last 20 years, but due to earlier Democratic redistricting every bit as onerous as the redistricting that Republicans were attempted (and actually more so), it's national Congressional delegation was split evenly Republican and Democratic, when actual voting patterns are closer to 65/35 in favor of Republicans. As Republicans captured and held on to state legislatures, Democrats suddenly woke up to the "evils" of redistricting and a subsequent media campaign ensued. Never mind that Democrats have been abusing redistricting power since the New Deal.
Yeah, because suppressing the logic is the way to win the argument
What logic is being suppressed? Certainly not yours, since you don't have any. There have been several documented extinction level impacts on the Earth, and a whole lot of others that, while not extinction level, would cause civilization to have a rather bad day. The only thing illogical is your insistence that a modest effort to cataloguing the threats and having a plan to deal with them is a waste of money or a sneaky way of weaponizing space.
Good to see you moderated to oblivion over this.
The kinds of large objects you're afraid of are not headed to hit the Earth.
You forgot the one, grand caveat: that we know of. And in this case, what you don't know CAN kill you, and everyone else on the planet.
Seriously dude, you're a deluded idiot. Karl Marx made up the word "capitalism", and the invention, as he knew it, was largely an English creation.
The trans-Atlantic slave trade was outlawed in the United States by 1798. Demand for slaves from Africa after 1800 came largely from Cuba and Brazil. Which you might be surprised to find, are not in the United States. And those two countries didn't outlaw slavery until 1880, 15 years after 500,000 Americans died over the issue.
Of course - the Star Wars project never succeeded. But it demonstrated the US's goal to weaponise space.
Guess what. Space is going to weaponized regardless of what the US does. SDI may have had something to do with the 40,000 nuclear warheads that the USSR was pointing at us.
Why not - the US's industrial revolution began by stealing patented technology from England without ever repaying the original inventors. In fact the US still proudly celebrates that fact. Go look up Lowell, Massachusetts - there are museums there that showcase the stolen technology.
Guess what. I don't care about some patent infringement that happened 150 years ago.
Remember why the US abolished slavery? The hope was that the slaves would suddenly join their army and help fight against the rebel southern states. Most abolitionists in the northern states didn't want Africans in the US - they wanted to ship the freed slaves back to Africa. This is how Liberia was founded.
Guess which two countries were responsible for eliminating the overseas slave trade? The UK and the United States. Not a single other country in the world stepped up and decided to do anything about slavery. So, really, stuff it.
Not to mention that in recent times, the US has simply renamed a slave to an "H1-B visa holder".
You really are deluded. I work with a lot of H1Bs. They make good money, and can quit any time they want. We don't even beat them. Slavery indeed.
And if you disagree that the US should have a giant space laser, then you're a "potential terrorist" and you can bet your village will burn.
And if anyone thinks this won't happen, just think back to the Star Wars project.
Yeah, I remember all those villages being burned up as a result of the Star Wars project. That was horrible. We certainly don't want to go down that road again. We should turn the United States into a pastoral agrarian country where we will put all the world's immigrants as restitution for the United States being successful, rich, and oh yeah, slavery was their fault too. And if, say China should get solar power up first, they should burn the US! Yah! That's the ticket.
Do the world a favor and stay far, far away from any science or technical field. The ignorance in your post is staggering.
When, eventually, there is a Democrat in the White House, don't expect any meaningful rollback. Neither party is likely to renounce useful tools.
Exactly. It wasn't an accident that confidential files of Republican Congressmen ended up in Hillary's safe in violation of the law. Ever since Hoover got the private ear of the office of POTUS, Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have reveled in reading other people's private mail and using that information to further advantage their political position. One can make an argument that at least the Bush administration is ostensibly doing it for national security reasons, rather than Hillary's vengedetta campaign against the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
What part of sovereign nation do you not understand?
Also, what part of "modern warfare practices" do we not adhere to? The US is the trendsetter on modern warfare practices. Oh, I gotcha, you mean the absurb legal constraints that the wcc tries to put on war fighting, like not shooting back at mosques when enemy fire is coming from those mosques. Thanks, but no thanks. You can keep your stupid rules that no one follows anyway.
By that guys definition, a machete head slice would be less violent than a blast from a taser, because the further away an action is, the more violent it is.
Ok, insult free response.
The USA is the richest country in the world. We have too much money to deny opportunities to those who are willing to work hard and earn it. (Heard that one on NPR the other day.)
The US is the richest country in the world, but our wealth is very, very finite. And we are busy spending it as well as posting credit on our children's and future grandchildren's wealth (and their children beyond them). Even mainstream media has gotten around to saying that, if the Federal government used GAAP to account for the budget, we'd have a 2.5 trillion USD year deficit at the Federal level. Why do I bring up the budget? Because illegal immigrants tend to be unskilled, low income immigrants who take about 4 to 5 generations to net out their tax outlays. We don't have 80 years to wait. The Federal government, at current rate, is going to be insolvent some time around 2017. Thats ten years from now. And yes, I know the Iraq war isn't helping things, but eventually it will end, as will our economic commitment to it. Social spending is a third rail in politics. Nothing mobilizes voters like taking away their benefits.
The current system is arbitrary and politically unmanageable. I'm not saying we should let 300 million immigrants in tomorrow, just saying that it's insanely hard to play by the rules.. especially when the powers that be "forget" about issuing thousands of greencards.
Not only is it insanely hard to play by the rules, you get screwed if you do. Case in point, H1B and other visa holders were not going to be eligible for the Z-visa. But illegal gang members were. This is sorta what you get when you "compromise". I'm fairly immigrant friendly (office is dominated by H1B's) and my fiance is Mexican-American but I'm irked at the economists and pro-business Republicans that hand-wave the economic costs of immigration (both legal and illegal) that is incurred by domestic labor, and the liberals and the left-wingers that insist on calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" and that think that "Give me your poor, your tired huddled masses" is a sane, rational national immigration policy. Unresticted immigration worked when there was a frontier to conquer. The frontier closed around 1890. I think a lot of "nativists" like myself are looking for an immigration policy that fits the needs of the American nation rather than the nexus of corporate interests and left-wing open border advocates.
Regarding vote fraud, the bottom line is, illegals vote. Illegally. And they overwhelmingly vote Democratic. And Democrats know this, and they know that illegal (and legal) immigration helps them, especially when we're talking about immigration from the third world. And for every Diebold, I can throw in a Daschle Reservation vote fraud or a Mayor Daley Machine at you. And I don't support it coming from "my" side any more than the other side. But when the other side supports policies that lead directly to illegal activity that helps them out, then one has to assume that there is tacit support of the outcome: illegal immigration and vote fraud.
As for the neocons, they are big-statists who happen to be "strong" on national defense. Things like the Constitution come in second place to empowering the central government. Attack them all you want.
Also, why is it against "national interest" to allow more legal immigrants? I'm afraid you lost me there.
The answer is "it depends". On the nature of the immigrants, the number of the immigrants, assimilation policies, social impact, etc. Immigration can help and it can hurt. It is not good in and of itself. Current immigration policies are mostly bad, and the recent "reform" attemp was simply more of the same, only at a faster pace.
I see what you did there. Put a statement out there that you claim to disagree with (and which isn't true, regarding every illegal being a murderer) and rely on the subliminal meaning to get the idea into people's heads that illegals are all lawless murdering scum. Well done.
You're an idiot. Just because you use slight of mouth techniques to "slip in subliminal meanings" doesn't mean everyone else does. My reference point for 4,000 murders is simple. That's 4,000 people that would be alive if we weren't playing host to 20 million illegal aliens. No more, no less. Document fraud and tax evasion, felonies when done by the average American citizen, are almost never prosecuted against illegal aliens and in fact Federal agencies are prevented from cooperating in this manner (ie, IRS is disallowed from forwarding SSN fraud information to ICE). And a whole lot of illegals are fully incorporated into the mainstream W2 economy.
You can't do 12 million of ANYTHING the way you do 5,000 of anything. We don't have the personnel, facilities, or will to deport 12 million people. We're talking about rounding up people like cattle (and treating them about as well). It's all a little too "Japanese-American internment camp" for me, thank you.
We certainly don't have the personnel or facilities to do it all at once. But that's the great thing about BORDER CONTROL. Once it's in place, you don't have to do it all at once. And the problem itself stabilizes instead of getting worse, year after year. Nor is there a rational argument for how difficult it is to obtain legal status, so you can support your family back home AND pay taxes to support the social services you consume.
Sure there is. It's called national interest. The United States already lets in more legal immigrants than any other country in the world. We also let more immigrants naturalize than any other country, and unlike, say Mexico, naturalization confers full rights (except for POTUS and VPOTUS ability).
There are basically two arguments for invasion level immigration:
1) labor shortages
2) "it's the right thing to do" (emotional argument)
1. There is no labor shortage. There is simply a labor shortage at the prices industry is willing to pay. 2. There are 4.5 billion people who are worse off economically than the average Latino illegal immigrant into the United States. Where do you idiot left wingers want to draw the line? 50 million enough? 300 million? How about all of them? Or maybe just to the point where you guys have enough illegal gotten votes where you can scrub the Constitution?
Without knowing better
Exactly. And so would the "Child Safety Protection Act" or the "Patriot Act". They always get cloaked with catchy marketing phrases that obscure and distort actual impact of the bill.
The big problem with the Medicaid/Medicare drug plan, of course, is that it's completely unfunded. It's a big sinking red inksplot of liability against the government's bottom line, and the government is already insolvent with respect to social spending if you take into account future liabilities. Adding more to those liabilities isn't a wise or sane decision.
We've had a Republican-controlled Executive and Legislative branch for 6 years, and an increasingly conservative SCOTUS as well, and you're going to try to tell me with a straight face that conservatives never get what they want?
You might want to re-read my post. I didn't say that "conservatives never get what they want". I said that compromise with liberals is wasted effort, because the only position that gets compromised is the conservative one, not the liberal or left-wing one. As for the Republican controlled Executive and Legislative branches, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me that it's been a pretty severe disappointment. Bush's big legislative achievements? "No child left behind" and the unfunded "Medicaid/Medicare drug plan". Neither one are really something that a conservative can wrap their arms around and feel all warm and fuzzy about.
As far as border security goes.. Fund it. Raise taxes if you have to. Until then, I don't want to hear it.
Sorry, did the 1st Amendment get abolished in between my post and yours? Hate to break it to you, but many aspects of border enforcement HAVE been funded. GDub has been dragging his feet on implementing them, however (see current approval ratings...you can't dip that low unless your base defects en masse).
On the one hand you've got all these "lawbreakers" who should be deported; on the other, you've got a cheap and easily exploitable labor pool.
Oh, I see now. You're one of those left wingers that think that all conservatives are alike, and get their 10-checklist playsheet from the evangelical church down the street. Hate to break it to you, but many of those illegals ARE breaking the law, and are breaking laws a lot more serious than crossing the border. Document fraud, drug trafficking, murder. Is every illegal alien a murderer? No, but upwards of 4,000 murders a year are committed by them (plus an equivilent number of deaths from drunk driving). Additionally, I'm not a big fan of indentured servitude as a solution to labor shortages or high labor prices. As for deporting 12,000,000 illegals, you do it the same way you deport 5,000 illegals. One person at a time, or by the busload. The grander idea is to stop the current invasion (anywhere from 1 to 10 million per year, depending on if you take the official lowball estimate or the high Border Patrol estimate) and then work on "attritting" out the remainder by making it more difficult to stay (by say, going after the folks that employ them). But yeah, it's kinda hard to deport "12 million" [sic] illegals when you have local obstruction like sanctuary cities and big business employer malfeasance working in conjunction with a corrupt Congress and an equally corrupt or out of touch Executive Branch.
There is NO rational argument to the amount of illegal immigration we are allowing in.
The problem with "compromise" is conservatives usually sacrifice their ideals in exchange for...nothing. "Comprehensive immigration reform" is good case in point. Ted Kennedy got just about everything he wanted, conservatives got that same old tired line about finally enforcing the border which was done in 1986, 1994, and 1996. If you are going to get the same result no matter what you do, you might as well at least make a stand on principle.
Except of course for the 45 Million Americans who cannot afford it and have no insurance.
Here's a little not-so-secret secret. Many of the 45 million uninsured Americans voluntarily choose not to have insurance even though they could afford it (for example, 20-somethings who choose to have $150 a month extra partying money).
The poor in America actually have insurance via medicaid. It's the largely the lower middle class that is screwed during any major medical event.
Amusingly enough, that's not entirely true. One of Moore's major points was that in the US, even if you have health insurance, they still won't pay for anything if they can find any excuse not to - and they put a lot of effort into finding excuses not to.
Sorry, I must've not been clear. If you are rich, you don't need insurance, or can afford good insurance. At which point you can afford top flight medical care from top flight doctors. I realize that most Americans (and yes, I'm one of them) fall into the "whatever my employer provides" bucket for insurance. Insurance companies, of course, have a built in incentive to deny claims...it increases their bottom line.
There are lots of problems with the US medical system. Lack of government involvment, however, really isn't one of them. There are a couple of no-brainers that would greatly improve things, however like: 1) let individuals buy insurance from out of state companies and 2) let individuals deduct insurance and other medical expenses from their end of year taxes (rather than, at best, the not-very-good Medical Savings Plan).