Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Friday Political Thread: The Week Everything Changed Edition
The week in brief...
- Blackwater USA went on trial before the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform and came off looking like vaudeville villains. Rep. Darrell Issa looked worse.
- Larry Craig lost an appeal in his cruising sting case but refused to quit the Senate. Newsweek talked to your friend and mine Gov. Butch Otter (R-Idaho).
- Barack Obama told a reporter in Iowa that he started wearing a flag pin after 9/11 but took it off when he thought it was a "substitute for true patriotism," kickstarting the stupidest kerfuffle of this campaign—possibly of any campaign, ever. Melissa Underwood got comment from the rest of the '08 campaigns and discovered that none of the other candidates cared much about pins.
The big issues...
Five by Five. Four years ago George W. Bush released his fundraising numbers for the third FEC quarter: $49.5 million. This week the top four Republicans released their numbers:
Rudy Giuliani - $11 million
Mitt Romney - $10 million
Fred Thompson - $9.3 million
John McCain - $6 million
That's a combined $36.3 million from the party that holds the
White House, compared to $59.2 million from the top four Democrats.
This was the stage for Ron Paul's shocking $5.1 million fundraising
haul, which included a $500,000 online money drive in the last
week of September that ended up raising $1.2 million—shades of
Howard Dean. Media phenom Mike Huckabee failed to capitalize on his
Ames Straw Poll surprise, so like Bob Hoskins in the
cab at the end of The Long Good Friday, Republicans
are slowly coming to accept their fate: Paul will be their outsider
candidate. After Iowa, he'll be the only second-tier candidate with
the cash to keep competing and appearing at debates. They won't
shake him at least until March, when he has to decide whether to
seek another term as a congressman from Texas. Yes, other
marginalized candidates have battled on long after the rest of
their tiers dropped out (think Keyes), but never in a
field as fractured as this one.
Hillary's Surge, and Obama's. Everybody saw the
Washington Post poll giving Hillary Clinton a
33-point primary lead. Drudge led with it for about 12 hours.
The voice-of-God spin came from Clinton backer Rep. Tom Petri
(D-Wisc.):
"It's all over but the voting." That's a nice way of putting it
as voting is a sort of integral part of the primary
process. And on that score, Obama's actually... in a pretty good
position. Look at Pollster.com's summary
of the polls in Iowa. Since the start of the year he's risen from
the low teens to the low twenties. Hillary's risen in tandem—a
little less growth, but with a higher starting point. Both
candidates are taking from the pathetic John Edwards (whose biggest
headlines this week came when his wife picked a fight with Rush
Limbaugh). Now, if it's caucus night and Edwards' campaign is
tracking the numbers and figures it's not going to win, who does it
tell its supporters in the smaller caucuses to go over to? It's not
like Edwards has never thought about this: In 2004, he
entered a pact with Dennis Kucinich to share caucus support if
one of them faltered.
If Obama passes Hillary in Iowa and wins the caucus, as seems completely possible, the national polling leads won't mean as much. But they won't mean nothing. The most important factoids from the Post poll are her strengthening numbers among Democrats who want an "electable" candidate and the declining number of Americans who'd "never" vote for her. (I should probably add that I share Ana Marie Cox's bias: These "Hillary the unstoppable Godzilla-like frontrunner" stories are dull.)
Below the fold...
- Townhall.com's Matt Lewis talks with the Paul campaign and finds it raised 70 percent of its cash online.
- Jay Roberts takes a scenic ramble about the digital quarters of Ron Paul nation.
- Deanna Darr checks in with Larry Craig's long-time allies. Many of them are sticking with him.
- This isn't news, but unless you're especially tidy you probably have stuff in your freezer that's acquired higher sentience than John Gibson.
- Matt Continetti catches John McCain recycling a seven-year old joke about Alan Greenspan.
- Steve Moore laments the fading salience of tax cuts with voters.
- David Brooks bemoans the GOP's retreat from Burkean conservatism. I like this Brooks better than the one who wrote "The Collapse of the Dream Palaces."
|10.5.07 @ 10:23PM|#
Y'know, if you write "Below the fold" you're supposed to put the rest in the permalinked post, not tack it onto the front page.
SIV|10.5.07 @ 10:30PM|#
Obama has worked hard to stake out a centrist position, but
his polarizing comments make him sound like a hardened
leftist
He is toast.
Anecdote:I know a few people(co-workers) who are
centrist/independents(ie voted for Clinton AND Bush).They kind of
like Giuliani,don't like Hillary,but were intrigued enough with
Obama to actually attend a campaign event/rally.They came away
impressed.Inside of two weeks,he pulls this gaffe, totally and
completely losing them. We live in an open primary State where you
can pick your Party at the poll,regardless of your
registration.
Fluffy|10.5.07 @ 11:09PM|#
Obama's "gaffe" was that he resisted the dictatorship of
kitsch.
Truly, the loathsome nature of the material culture of so-called
patriotic Americans is heinous enough that a biblical-scale flood
to wash the detritus away would actually be welcome at this point.
Please, put the flag pins and the Franklin Mint crap and the
ceramic figurines and the magnetic yellow ribbons and the frilly
roadside memorials and all the rest of it and put it all somewhere
where the kitsch-sensitive among us don't have to see it. Please,
I'm asking nicely.
|10.5.07 @ 11:14PM|#
Critical Paul article here:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul%27s+isolationism%3a+Unrealistic+and+dangerous&articleId=337db256-d684-4098-a896-7bc5fe6123b2
What was that? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then
they attack you? Looks like phase 3 has commenced. Dr. Paul rebutts
on Monday.
Franklin Harris|10.5.07 @ 11:21PM|#
Why the hell did I click on that John Gibson link? Now I feel dumber for just having read it. Seriously, Gibson may be the dumbest person at Fox News, and lord knows he has competition.
|10.5.07 @ 11:33PM|#
Clicked the Gibson link. Can I get a show of hands? How many of you are 9/11 "truthers?"
TLB|10.5.07 @ 11:49PM|#
Look, it's just us here. We can all admit that Ron Paul is a Truther and our denials are just until he gets into office. It's OK, we're the only ones who'll read this.
Edward|10.6.07 @ 1:14AM|#
"Townhall.com's Matt Lewis talks with the Paul campaign and
finds it raised 70 percent of its cash online."
This is easy to explain. Wingnuts from 9/11 truthers to David Duke
supporters are inveterate internet masturbaters who fork over money
in small donations to hopeless campaigns as a kind of ritual
canine-like marking of territory. It is truly a tale full of sound
and fury, signifying nothing.
|10.6.07 @ 1:23AM|#
Wingnuts from 9/11 truthers to David Duke supporters are
inveterate internet masturbaters who fork over money in small
donations to hopeless campaigns as a kind of ritual canine-like
marking of territory.
Ah, but you add so much substance to discussion,
Edward.
|10.6.07 @ 1:30AM|#
sixstring, the Manchester Union Leader is a Pat Buchanan-esque
paleo-con paper. Its editorial positions are given the same cred as
the average Roswell conspiracy newsletter. Or Lonewacko. Hey,
Lonewacko, look behind ya! It's a Mexi! Go
git 'im!
Speaking of which, HTF does an oxygen theif like John Gibson get a
gig like that? I thought the comments about his stupidity were
being somewhat hyperbolic, but damn, it's like Edward with an
editor.
Edward|10.6.07 @ 1:32AM|#
Thanks, Jackson. I try to get to the heart of matters. Outside libertarian circles, Ron Paul will be a soon-forgotten footnote to this election. That's very good because wignuts come to power only in times of severe crisis.
Franklin Harris|10.6.07 @ 1:33AM|#
It is truly a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I notice you left off the part of the quote about it being a tale
told by an idiot. But then, you are the one telling it.
stephen the goldberger|10.6.07 @ 1:52AM|#
obama is not in a good position the only people who think he is are political commentators who want things to look more interesting than it really is.
stephen the goldberger|10.6.07 @ 2:04AM|#
i dont know why i posted that given that you admit that that's the case in your own post. probably because im drunk.
Paul|10.6.07 @ 3:08AM|#
What was that? First they ignore you, then they laugh at
you, then they attack you? Looks like phase 3 has
commenced.
And I love Ron Paul, really, I do. But I still stand by my
assertion that once the mainstream media gets ahold of him, he's
toast. It looks like it's coming.
|10.6.07 @ 6:33AM|#
I've contributed to the Paul campaign and will vote for him if
he is still in the running by the time of my state's primary. I
don't think he'll win the nomination and if by some fluke he does,
he won't win the election.
But the only way to shake up our ossified political system is to
put real muscle of votes and money behind outsiders like him. Then
the major parties, who are always desperate for those precious
swing votes, will make some effort to win pro-constitution/limited
government types.
|10.6.07 @ 9:19AM|#
Guys, remember that Ron-Paul-obsessed occasional poster named
Edward - the guy who kept claiming that Ron Paul is irrelevant yet
seemed terrified of him?
I know that he doesn't post here anymore, and that the only posts
with "Edward" in the name were typed by imposters trying to amuse
us.
I'll bet he's real mad now, kind of like a cult member who wakes up
the day after he told all his acquaintances that the world was
going to end or Eric Dondero after his latest predictions of
American victory in Iraq turn to ashes for the nth time.
I'm sure that if he were to post here, it would be comic gold.
|10.6.07 @ 9:22AM|#
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/culturalagency1/SamuelHuntingtonTheHispanicC.pdf
Bhh|10.6.07 @ 9:30AM|#
Won't someone think of the guy in China who owns the American flag lapel pin factory? What's he going to do if we all stop wearing them?
|10.6.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Please, put the flag pins and the Franklin Mint crap and the
ceramic figurines and the magnetic yellow ribbons and the frilly
roadside memorials and all the rest of it and put it all somewhere
where the kitsch-sensitive among us don't have to see it. Please,
I'm asking nicely.
Fluffy's asking nicely, (with a handle like Fluffy, you'd expect
that). I'm warning y'all. This sanctimonious crap cluttering up my
field of vision has got to go. One way or another...
|10.6.07 @ 10:23AM|#
But I still stand by my assertion that once the mainstream
media gets ahold of him, he's toast.
On the contrary, I think we can expect much more respectful media
coverage (except perhaps from the Murdoch press).
What could the media possibly say that would make him "toast",
anyway? His most controversial positions are front and center in
the compaign. He's not trying to hide anything.
|10.6.07 @ 10:35AM|#
I deal with such a massive amount of stupidity in daily life, you'd think I would try to avoid it on the weekends. But NOOOO!, I foolishly visit a web site provided by our resident cultural chicken little, Grand Chalupa. A piece of advice to those with IQs above room temperature, don't repeat my mistake. You've been warned!
Bob Z|10.6.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Off topic - I just flipped to the Opinion page of today's WSJ
and what do I see - CSI: Mississippi by none other than Radley
Balko, a shortened version of his article about the truly
contemptible Steven Hayne from this month's Reason.
The Reason article made my blood boil, but it also saddened me,
because, like it or not, publishing an article like that in Reason
is the very definition of preaching to the choir. Publishing it in
the WSJ is an entirely different story. Hopefully this will get
Gov. Barbour to pay a little less attention to his beach house and
a little more attenton to the gross injustice that is being
perpetrated in his state's courtrooms.
Radley, you are truly a great American. Keep putting the word out
there and people are bound to start listening.
|10.6.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Funny, Sam Huntington completely changed his mind about Mexico
within the space of a decade. In the "Clash of Civilizations" he
said the gap in culture between the USA and Mexico really wasn't
that big, and that Mexico was actually becoming more "North
American".
Looks like he wants to appeal to the Lonewacko/Pat Buchannan
set
|10.6.07 @ 10:47AM|#
I'd be really impressed if Chalupa managed to post about something that didn't relate to racial politics or how "Islamofascists" will eat our babies.
|10.6.07 @ 11:05AM|#
I liked the Hunnington post. I guess I'm one of those folks who
is a "cultural chicken little." I think of it as one of those folks
for whom culture matters. You know, like sociologists,
anthroplogists, and increasingly economists, .i.e., like Nobel
Prize winnder Douglas North,
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1993/north-autobio.html
Cesar, when I read Clash of Civilizations I seem to remember the
opening chapter using Mexican-American cheering for the Mexican
team at a US soccer match as one of his opening examples. So I
think he had concerns from the start.
|10.6.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Of course they'd cheer for the Mexican team. The US sucks at soccer, IIRC they're near the bottom of the world.
|10.6.07 @ 11:09AM|#
It would at least behoove folks who disagreed with Hunnington's article to address it's aarguments rather than assert his arguments are stupid and equating him with Pat Buchanan.
iih|10.6.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Funny, Sam Huntington completely changed his mind about
Mexico within the space of a decade. In the "Clash of
Civilizations" he said the gap in culture between the USA and
Mexico really wasn't that big, and that Mexico was actually
becoming more "North American".
With the fight against Islam/Islamic culture already in the basket,
he's moving on to the next thing. After that, he'll fight Canadian
influence on American "heritage" (which I thought had to do with
some sort of a melting pot). After the Canadians, he will start to
look inside and try to figure out how to "cleanse" the American
heritage from the Democratic Party influence and their
constituents, and then... you could start seeing where this is
going.
|10.6.07 @ 11:11AM|#
I could respect Huntington more if he said we were a western
nation. Or even though I wouldn't agree with it, a Christian
one.
But hes actually one of those few guys left that actually thinks we
are a Protestant Anglo-Saxon nation. I've got news for him
but WASPs haven't been in the majority since 1787.
|10.6.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Grand Chalupa,
If you would like to commune with those who have similar views as
yourself, I strongly recommend you visit:
http://www.kkk.com/
or
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
And stay there!
With no regards,
A non-english, atheistic descendent of undesired popish
immigrants,
J sub D
|10.6.07 @ 11:13AM|#
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/clashofcivilizations.htm
Cesar-paragraph four addresses Mexican immigration, the soccer
story is later in the book
|10.6.07 @ 11:16AM|#
MNG, I'm curious do you agree with him that we are in his words
a White-Protestant Anglo-Saxon country?
I think its a load of bull, and the fact that he repeats the stupid
post-civil war meme that America was "really" started by Puritan
New Englanders. Which isn't true at all, but I digress.
|10.6.07 @ 11:16AM|#
J sub D-I've disagreed with Chalupa for what I thought were
racist comments about Arabs, but are you claiming that those who
agree with Hunnington are Nazi's and Klansmen? If so I think that
is nuts, like saying since you are a libtertarian you must be a
anarchist suvivalist gun nut who prints his own money...
Cesar-I read Hunnington as claiming that are unique institutions
are derived from Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. I think he's right
about that, isn't he?
|10.6.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Cesar-Look at our legal system. Do you know of any common law
nation that was NOT a former English colony? And certainly the
majority of the Founders were Protestant Englishmen.
Also, that Protestantism was associated with market economies is no
radically unheard of idea, it goes back to Max Weber and the
Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
|10.6.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Cesar-I read Hunnington as claiming that are unique
institutions are derived from Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. I
think he's right about that, isn't he?
The corollary to that is all those Catholics and Jews aren't really
Americans and haven't contributed anything to our
institutions.
Well, except for those enlightenment philosophers who were from
Papist France.
Seriously, this guy is a paleo-paleo conservative. Most paleocons
want to go back to the 1950s, this guy wants to go back to the
1840s.
|10.6.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Cesar-Look at our legal system. Do you know of any common
law nation that was NOT a former English colony? And certainly the
majority of the Founders were Protestant Englishmen.
The most "American" colonies were actually the Middle Colonies,
which were not prodominatley English. Have you read The Island
at the Center of the World?
Our government has a lot of French ideas in it, too. As in,
Catholic French. Who aren't even Anglo-Saxon.
|10.6.07 @ 11:25AM|#
"The most "American" colonies were actually the Middle Colonies,
which were not prodominatley English."
What? I'm gonna have to see some proof of that.
Of the signers of the Declaration, how many were Protestant
Englishmen versus Catholic Frenchmen or Jews? The members of the
Constitutional Convention?
Again, which colonies, and then states, other than LA did not have
common law legal systems inheriting the very unique system of law
and legal reasoning and rights that came from England?
|10.6.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Uh, MNG, New York was founded by the Dutch. I have you a book to
read about it.
Pennsylvania was founded by Englishmen, but settled almost entirely
by Germans, among others.There were enough Germans for Benjamin
Franklin to right a pamphlet stating that we would be "Germanized"
by them.
There were writings from the time that said if you walked down a
street in Philadelphia in the 1700s you could here people speaking
in dozens of languages.
And guess where the first bi-lingual school in America was? It was
Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster.
|10.6.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Of the signers of the Declaration, how many were Protestant
Englishmen versus Catholic Frenchmen or Jews? The members of the
Constitutional Convention?
So what? The founders explicitly rejected the idea the
Enlightenment ideas which they based our system on derived from
English liberties. Their language was explicit about the rights of
all man-kind.
|10.6.07 @ 11:34AM|#
The first Catholic appointed to the Supreme Court was in 1836,
the second in 1894. The first Jewish justice was Brandeis in 1916.
The first Catholic President was not until 1960, and no Jew has
served as President.
I won't argue that many Jews and Catholics have contributed their
time, intelligence, and ideas to our nations history. But our
institutions are simply not Catholic, Jewish, French or German,
etc.. They are, like Australia, Canada, and other former English
colonies, English and Protestant...
|10.6.07 @ 11:36AM|#
I won't argue that many Jews and Catholics have contributed
their time, intelligence, and ideas to our nations history. But our
institutions are simply not Catholic, Jewish, French or German,
etc.. They are, like Australia, Canada, and other former English
colonies, English and Protestant...
No, our system is based on the universal ideals of the
Enlightenment. If we're so English why don't we have a King and
Parliament? Why? Because Madison got his ideas for the structure of
our government (separation of powers, etc) from a Catholic
Frenchman.
|10.6.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Of course NY was a dutch colony (Florida was a SPanish one, and LA a French one). But they soon became English ones, with English law, and the populations of English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh growing greater than the Germans/Dutch populations (the very fact you mention, that Franklin feared "Germanization" implies English was the norm for him, a norm threatened yes, but the norm).
iih|10.6.07 @ 11:37AM|#
You know what, I think that if I had lived in 1790, or 1840 USA,
I would have had a more enjoyable life being left alone and not
having to hear all the racist talk and racism related tensions that
the public discourse is so filled with these days.
It is interesting to note that Arab immigration to the US came in
the late 19th century. Vermont/New Hampshire seems to have been one
of the earliest destinations, followed by South Estern
Michigan.
Can any one guess where the first US was? I was
surprised.
|10.6.07 @ 11:39AM|#
the very fact you mention, that Franklin feared
"Germanization" implies English was the norm for him, a norm
threatened yes, but the norm).
To his credit that pamphlet was from early in his career, and he
changed his mind about the Germans later on, even helped to fund
the school I mentioned which bears his name.
iih|10.6.07 @ 11:39AM|#
J sub D:
Popish - Roman Catholic.
Oh, sorry, didn't know that. I know there is also a sizable Polish
American community in South East Michigan.
|10.6.07 @ 11:40AM|#
The Dutch and Germans didn't become English. The Germans, Dutch, English and everyone else became American.
Edward|10.6.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Re David brook's piece on Burkian conservatism, here's an interesting take on libertarianism --marixism of the right: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
|10.6.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Indeed the Founders read Montesquie and the Enlightenment
thinkers, as well as "enlightened" Englishmen such as Blackstone,
Locke, Hume, Coke, etc.. But the institutions they drew on were
English ones. The French Enlightenment ideas had not been
translated into governmental institutions in Catholic France, not
until they emulated our Revolution with theirs.
Most of the Bill of Rights can be found in the Magna Carta, the
English Bill of Rights, and the Common Law at the time. American
courts adopted English common law nearly entirely.
iih|10.6.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Weren't many Michigan cities and towns German speaking until the 1940s? I remember reading a statistic somewhere saying that 70-80% of Michiganders were German, followed by Dutch (on the West Michigan coast) and French (South East).
|10.6.07 @ 11:44AM|#
MNG if our institutions were English I'd expect we would have a King, Parliament, a hereditary nobility, a Prime Minister, a unitary government and an un-written constitution.
|10.6.07 @ 11:47AM|#
MNG,
Mr Chalupa's posts are often screeds about the immigrant and/or
muslim threat. The sites I referred him to have similar concerns
about the brown skinned and non protestant religions. My ancestors
went through this same ignorant tribal bullshit, deliverd in the
same smug, condescending tones, about non assimilation, loyaty to
foreign potentates, culteral values etc. Yet somehow, the waves of
German, Irish, Italian, Eastern Europeans and Oriental immigration
has improved American culture. We are a much stronger nation,
morally, intellectually, and culturally as a result. Yes chicken
little is a mocking term. It also fits. Lastly, if it looks like a
duck ...
|10.6.07 @ 11:52AM|#
There was plenty of anti-immigrant
sentiment in the 1800s.
That cartoon cracks me up because apparently American culture is
threatened by Lager Beer.
|10.6.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Well, of course we are not England, just a former English
colony. From the beginning we had to adapt to different
circumstances and then had an actual rebellion, so we adapted
different institutions. But nearly all of the Founders were English
speaking, Protestant church going, common law following,
Locke/Blackstone reading Anglo-Saxons. Our system of limited
government (incorporating rights long seen as the "rights of
Englishmen"), representative government and common law precedent
and reasoning were certainly not practiced in Catholic, French or
Jewish nations at the time.
The Founders read Montesquie, yes, but also Greek and Roman writers
a lot, but our institutions are more English than Greek for
goodness sakes!
|10.6.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Church-going? Is that why Jefferson was accused of being an
atheist all the time? Is that why Washington left Church before
communion?
They had range of religious beliefs. Fundamentalist evangelicals
(Benjamin Rush, Unitarians (Adams) fallen-away Episcopalians
(Washington) to Deists (Jefferson).
Oh, and why isn't the Episcopal Church our national religion? Its
pretty damn small, even though its the most "English"
religion.
We are very different form Canada or Australia. Demographically,
religiously, politically, culturally.
iih|10.6.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Duh...
Can any one guess where the first US mosque
was? I was
surprised.
Forgive me, but it was a long, tough week.
|10.6.07 @ 12:04PM|#
I immediately thought I should change Church going to Church
affiliated. I'm not arguing they were orthodox or homogenous
Protestants by no means (I love the Deist traditions we had), but
they were Protestants (even the nominal ones were nominal
Protestants, not nominal Catholics). Certainly you admit
that?
If you compare Canada to Russia, Brazil, China and the US, who are
they more like? Of course they are different, but they are more
like each other than like nations with Orthodox or Spanish or Asian
cultures. That's why people can talk not just of Western Culture
but Anglo-Saxon cultures such as former British colonies.
Perhaps you can tell us what institutions we adopted in our
Founding that were institutions being practiced in France or other
for that matter predominately Catholic nations like Spain or
Portugal?
|10.6.07 @ 12:11PM|#
J sub D
Yes, many people opposed to immigration, both in 1880 and now, are
racists. But of course many "libertarians" in the past, and now,
were social darwinists and racist, but it would be crazy to
conflate the two whenever one came across a principled libertarian
position. So maybe it's not right to dismiss all immigration
opponents as racists.
SIV|10.6.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Cesar,
Benjamin Rush a fundamentalist Evangelical?
wiki disclaimer
He is generally deemed Presbyterian and was a founder of the
Philadelphia Bible Society.[6] He was an advocate for Christianity
in public life and in particular in education. In line with that,
he advocated Scriptures as a textbook in the public
schools.[7]
That stated, he may have had Universalist leanings, as the
following quote on education seems to imply.[8] It states, "Such is
my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the
Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had
rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our
youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious
principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is
that of the New Testament.
|10.6.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Oh, sorry, didn't know that. I know there is also a sizable
Polish American community in South East Michigan
No apology necessary. And hell yes we have a large Polish flavor in
SE Michigan. Hantranck is gloriously Polish. Where would America be
without kiebasa, paczki, and this guy!
Guess what MNG, he wasn't English or protestant. Imagine that!
|10.6.07 @ 12:14PM|#
With no regards,
A non-english, atheistic descendent of undesired popish
immigrants,
J sub D
My friend, you are arguing with a second generation, Arab, raised
Catholic, atheist.
I usually don't feel the need to mention that since I thought
making your argument stronger by designating yourself as a member
of a victim group only worked when arguing with far leftists.
iih|10.6.07 @ 12:19PM|#
I think that immigration (in large numbers) is a modern
phenomenon, brought about by globalization (especially the
"globality" of media), ease of travel, and demand by Western
nations to have an edge, by attracting promising minds. Also,
socia-economic pressures in poorer countries tends to force their
populations to immigrate to the "West". As far as I can tell,
anti-immigration folks are not very pragmatic in their
approach.
This is one of the reasons I think it would be great for Western
corporations to invest in the poorer countries. May be this is one
of the good consequences of "outsourcing" --it may help relieve the
immigration (especially illegal) pressures.
|10.6.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Is that why Jefferson was accused of being an atheist all
the time?
Jefferson was accused of being an atheist because he was one. Read
his letters to Adams sometime.
|10.6.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Jefferson was accused of being an atheist because he was one. Read
his letters to Adams sometime.
Rhetorical question. Though I always thought he was more of a cold
Deist. But again, it was hard to admit you didn't believe in any
God openly back then.
SIV-
Perhaps I chose the wrong wording, but Rush was certainly a devout
Christian, much more than most of the founders.
MNG-
Nobody in the world in the 1780s was practicing Enlightenment ideas
in their governments. Not Spain, not Portugal, Not France, and not
even England. Theres a reason why they rejected the English
system--they saw it as broken, corrupt, and immoral. I think our
models are much closer to say, the Roman Republic than England.
|10.6.07 @ 12:29PM|#
My friend, you are arguing with a second generation, Arab,
raised Catholic, atheis
Then you should know better. ;-)
Peace,
J sun D
P.S. I'm not a victim, never have been, but I sympathize with those
who are.
|10.6.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Is it my ISP or have the server squirrels snuck back into the reason complex? Anyone?
|10.6.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Heres a funny question for iih and Chalupa since you're both
Arabs.
Are you often mistaken for being Latino?
iih|10.6.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Well, Cesar, Chalupa is not quite that "Arab". He managed to
escape their low IQ performance.
J sub D: I, too, thought it was my ISP. But I think it is the
reason complex.
Daniel McAdams|10.6.07 @ 12:39PM|#
To: BakedPenguin
"the Manchester Union Leader is a Pat Buchanan-esque paleo-con
paper."
You are so 1996!
The Union Leader's editorial page is fully neo-conized these
days.
iih|10.6.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Are you often mistaken for being Latino?
No, I am slim and tall ;-) But, seriously, I have never been
confused as such. In Puerto Rico, I was surprised to see how
strikingly "Arab-looking" some of the people (especially their men)
were. A Puerto Rican friend of mine told me that there is a lot of
North African influence through the Spanish link and/or early
immigration by Middle Easterners to Central and South America
(Argentina's Moneim was Lebanese).
|10.6.07 @ 12:43PM|#
On average, compared to whites, yes.
Although grouping Arabs as a race or sub-race is problematic.
Lebanese look nothing like Saudia Arabians.
|10.6.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Although grouping Arabs as a race or sub-race is problematic.
Lebanese look nothing like Saudia Arabians.
Good, so you'll realize that having a "hispanic" race has similar
flaws?
Don't tell a Mexican they look Guatemalan unless you want to be
punched in the face.
|10.6.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Heres a funny question for iih and Chalupa since you're both
Arabs.
Are you often mistaken for being Latino?
Nope, I've got green eyes and very light skin. Usually mistaken for
Greek or Italian.
|10.6.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Good, so you'll realize that having a "hispanic" race has
similar flaws?
Yes, if you read the Hunington article there is no mention of
genetics. He's more concerned about the immigrants being low skill,
their retention of Spanish, clustering in certain areas of the US,
their low achievment in education and rejection of American
culture.
iih|10.6.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Technically, Lebanese and Egyptians, for example, are not "Arab". They are "Arab-speaking". Arabs (of Arabia), Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, are all technically Semitic. Funny thing is that in college applications, Arabs are often listed as "white". I disliked such characterizations would always prefer not responding to that question or say "other" instead.
|10.6.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Well Chalupa in you're last two posts you have just admitted that race is partially a social construct. How does it feel to have "warm fuzzy PC fantasies?"
And what am I - chopped masted|10.6.07 @ 12:51PM|#
immigration (in large numbers) is a modern phenomenon
Tramp! tramp! tramp!
The boys are marching
iih|10.6.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Chalupa: So I take it that you are of Lebanese descent?
By the way, the Lebanes, Syrians, and West Bank, and Israeli
Palestinians (Israeli "Arabs") have mixed racial descent. Some with
strong European influence from the days of the Greeks, crusaders,
then later Balkans (the Mamluks), and, in more recent times,
French.
|10.6.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Heres a funny question for iih and Chalupa since you're both
Arabs.
Are you often mistaken for being Latino?
True story - I once observed a shipmate of mine accused of denying
being Filipino and in Olangapo City, PI. He was 100% Navajo. He was
not amused. He was good naturedly ribbed about it thereafter.
|10.6.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Yes, if you read the Hunington article there is no mention
of genetics. He's more concerned about the immigrants being low
skill, their retention of Spanish, clustering in certain areas of
the US, their low achievment in education and rejection of American
culture.
The argument is hardly new. Only the targets have changed.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.6.07 @ 1:20PM|#
When my buddy El Jeronimo de Crow was traveling in Europe (20 years ago) he was constantly mistaken for an Arab. He's actually Latino and distantly related to Cesar Romero.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.6.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Don't tell a Mexican they look Guatemalan unless you want to
be punched in the face.
One of my boy's friends is Guatemalan and although I knew the
family were immigrants I was pretty sure they weren't from Mexico.
The dad didn't take siestas and no trace of a sombrero anywhere in
the house.
Had a client become quite indignant one day at lunch a few years
back. In heavily accented English he said to me....
Michael! You thought I was Mexican? I ain't no god dam Mexican,
I'm Puerto Rican.
Then he shook his head a couple times like I was the biggest idiot
he'd ever met.
He didn't hold a grudge though. :-)
|10.6.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Grande C,
You haven't been doing your reading.
Here is a nice piece that will explain some of the underlying
problems with you view on race/genetics/IQ.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html
I seem to remember you saying you were a math major (minor), so you
shouldn't be afraid of the simple formulas involved.
|10.6.07 @ 2:03PM|#
The Hunington paper acknowledges that there's been large
immigration in the past but presents his argument as to why this is
different. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments here, but I
wish you all would read the paper before bringing up points that
have been answered.
The sheer numbers of Mexicans, their historical claim to the South
West and their proximity to their home country make this unlike any
immigration we've ever experienced. Hunington also contrasts them
with Asian immigrants to show what successful asimilation looks
like.
Maybe Hispanics will melt right in. However, if you thought there
was only a 10% chance that this Mexinization will change the
country forever why would we risk it? You all need to internalize
Burke.
Cesar,
Yes, race, like say sexual orientation, is partially socially
constructed but also very biologically real. Only a fool would deny
that. I've had college textbooks though (in classes that have
nothing to do with genetics) that say there is no biological
component to race and that kind of thinking being mainstream is
what I'm against.
iih,
I'm from Palestinian and Joranian descent.
|10.6.07 @ 2:04PM|#
MNG,
I still find your arguments on this issue surprising.
Study the history of New Mexico a bit.
Spanish/Catholic institutions are a very important part of the
development of a very large geographic chunk of our country...And
pre-date the arrival of the English.
|10.6.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Chalupa, of course its party genetic. But theres a big social
component to it. People think I'm all white when they look at me or
see my last name, but I'm not.
Barak Obama has the same issue. Is he "Black" enough. Of course he
is in his genetics, but the fact that question is even raised
because he doesn't speak like Al Sharpton shows how big a role
social construction.
|10.6.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Neu Mejican-
The whole "America is nation of New England puritans" crap was
started by Henry Adams and others after the civil war in an attempt
to take the South more "un-American".
|10.6.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Grande C,
If you are interested in a more detailed peer-reviewed look at the
issue of the biology/genetics of race...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020
More technical, but very informative.
Cesar,
You might also find the above article interesting. It does a good
job of trying to tease apart the reality of genetic races...
A final complication arises when racial classifications are
used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of
race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not
interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce
predictive power still further.
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be
correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible
with the observation that most human genetic variation is found
within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with
our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are
considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are
frequently more similar to members of other populations than to
members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when
using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about
individual phenotypes.
|10.6.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Thanks for the article Neu Mejican.
Have you (or Chalupa for that matter) ever read Guns,Germs, and
Steel?
iih|10.6.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Talking about racism, read what underzog had to say here. Not
that underzog is relevant, anyways, but he does represent the kind
of danger people that sometimes scares the hell out of me.
Underzog: If you are reading this now, please feel free to chime
in.
iih|10.6.07 @ 2:48PM|#
correction: but he does represent the kind of danger
people that sometimes scares the hell out of
me.
|10.6.07 @ 3:14PM|#
However, if you thought there was only a 10% chance that
this Mexinization will change the country forever why would we risk
it?
There is a 100% chance that our country will continue to change and
that part of that change will result from the influx of
Hispanics.
Dynamism is one of the GOOD things about our country. There is
nothing to be afraid of in change.
VM|10.6.07 @ 3:18PM|#
iih | October 6, 2007, 11:43am | #
Weren't many Michigan cities and towns German speaking until the 1940s?
in Wisconsin, too. My mom's first language was German, and you
still hear an odd mixture of English/German around there.
you still hear a little in the Chicago Lincoln Square neighborhood,
too.
|10.6.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Maybe I'm just weird, but I think that the historical/cultural ties latinos have to the southwest would be an advantage, not a disadvantage. The fact theres always been some measure of Latin American influence there should make an integration into American society easier.
Fluffy|10.6.07 @ 3:23PM|#
About the whole "English and Protestant" thing -
There's Protestant, and then there's PROTESTANT. The Anglican
"Protestants" who settled all the Colonies outside of New England
were Catholic in all but name. The Anglican Church was essentially
a Catholic church headed by the monarch instead of the Pope. Henry
VIII was essentially a Catholic theologian until he needed a
divorce. REAL Protestantism, of the Luther / Zwingli variety, isn't
connected with English liberty and common law tradition as much as
it is connected to utopian totalitarianism and German
authoritarianism.
|10.6.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Grande C,
You all need to internalize Burke.
You need to internalize Paine.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/
iih|10.6.07 @ 3:23PM|#
VM:
I sometimes wonder what would the US (and Canada for that matter)
be like if all the people from all sorts origins retained their
distinct languages and cultures, beside a common American language
(presumably English). Of course, the Canadians prefer the "Cultural
Salad" instead of the American "Cultural Pot".
In MI, the city of Frankenmuth still celebrates Oktoberfest among, other
German festivals.
|10.6.07 @ 3:24PM|#
I forgot to add that also many latinos are moving places that
haven't had much cultural or historical significance for them. For
example the influx of Central Americans into Virginia in recent
decades.
I am, however, waiting for TLB to tell me that the
GuatemalanGovernment is secretly planning to take over
Virginia.
|10.6.07 @ 3:26PM|#
For those saying that Parliament and common law were essentially Protestant institutions, there are two serious problems with that theory: no such institutions existed in Protestant Germany or Sweden, and both Parliament and common law developed were already firmly ensconced when England was still a Catholic country. The Church of England was created by order of Parliament, remember.
|10.6.07 @ 3:40PM|#
The Church of England was created by order of Parliament,
remember.
Angicans, AKA Left Handed Catholics.
|10.6.07 @ 3:44PM|#
A brief look at crime statistics and it seems that the
"Mexicalization" of the US would result in a lower crime rate
overall. Notice in particular aggravated assault and rape.
Crime Rates in Mexico per 100,000 inhabitants
Mexico 2002 /USA in 2002
Total Crimes 1503.71 /4118.76
Murder 13.04 /5.62
Murder with firearm 2.58 /3.25
Aggravated assault 186.68 /310.14
Rape 14.26 /32.99
Theft 112.47 /2445.80
Automobile theft 139.86 /432.12
Robbery 146.57 /145.87
Source: 7th[1] and 8th[2] Survey, United Nations
|10.6.07 @ 3:47PM|#
El Paso along with several other cities with large Hispanic populations (San Jose and San Antonio) ranked as some of the safest in the United States.
|10.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#
OF course the murder rate is of concern.
But much of that is driven by the drug blackmarket supplying the US
with our contraband.
|10.6.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Cesar,
And you didn't highlight San Diego which, along with El Paso, is
ground zero for illegal immigration.
|10.6.07 @ 3:56PM|#
And you didn't highlight San Diego which, along with El
Paso, is ground zero for illegal immigration.
Duncan Hunter always likes to claim its the wall he built or
something.
|10.6.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Of course Albuquerque Metro Area is 15th most dangerous.
This is hard to interpret since Albuquerque has a lower per-capita
Hispanic population than the rest of the State, but a higher
per-capita population than the nation.
Is it more dangerous because of or in spite of the number of
Hispanics?
Or, gasp, could it be something else entirely...
|10.6.07 @ 4:00PM|#
re: Duncan Hunter
Oh yeah, I forgot.
They don't have illegal immigration in San Diego anymore.
=/;^)
|10.6.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Ummm, can we stipulte for the record that no one here arguing
about race is gonna change their minds, have y'all get a room
already, and someone change the topic to, oh I don't know, ANY of
the suggested topics of conversation in Dave Weigel's post?
The following was amusing at first:
"Non-whites (Catholics, etc.) are dirty and stupid and should be
kept out of our country."
"Nuh-uh!"
Repeat ad nauseam.
|10.6.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Ok,
- Steve Moore laments the fading salience of tax cuts with
voters.
So, is there any time any of you all would support a tax hike at
the state or federal level? Or should it be no new taxes, ever?
|10.6.07 @ 4:08PM|#
New Topic,
Conservatives (SIV, Prolefeed) are dirty and stupid and should be
kept off of H&R threads
=/;^)
I es Keeeedeeen, I es Keeedeeen.
|10.6.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Ok, since libertarians are way too smart and sophisticated for
the cultural argument, how bout the argument of what large
immigration means for the future chances of libertarian electoral
success?
As to why I think libertarians are nuts to favor mass
uncontrolled immigration from the third world: I think they are
nuts because their enthusiasm on this matter is suicidal to their
cause. Their ideological passion is blinding them to a rather
obvious fact: that libertarianism is a peculiarly American
doctrine, with very little appeal to the huddled masses of the
third world. If libertarianism implies mass third-world
immigration, then it is self-destroying. Libertarianism is simply
not attractive either to illiterate peasants from mercantilist
Latin American states, or to East Asians with traditions of
imperial-bureaucratic paternalism, or to the products of Middle
Eastern Muslim theocracies.
There are a number of responses a libertarian might make to that.
Not included in those responses, I think, given the current state
of our national affairs, is the argument that Providence has
inscribed a yearning for liberty on every human heart.
A libertarian might, though, say that while libertarianism could
indeed be a hard sell to immigrants from very illiberal political
traditions, it will appeal to their Americanized children, to the
second generation. Possibly so. Even setting aside the great
strengthening of the welfare state caused by the preferences of
that first generation, though, to sell libertarianism to the second
generation would need a tremendous missionary effort. According to
Brink Lindsey, only 13 percent of Americans currently lean
libertarian. If decades of libertarian proselytizing have only
achieved that much success with a population rooted in the
traditions of Pericles and Magna Carta, of the Renaissance,
Reformation, and Enlightenment, of Washington, Jefferson, and
Madison, how well should libertarians expect to do with the
political descendants of emperors and caliphs, of Toussaint
L'Ouverture and Mao Tse-tung?
___
The people who made Russia's Communist revolution in 1917
believed that they were merely striking a spark that would ignite a
worldwide fire. They regarded Russia as a deeply unpromising place
in which to "build socialism," her tiny urban proletariat and
multitudinous medieval peasantry poor material from which to
fashion New Soviet Man. Their hope was that the modern industrial
nations of the world would take inspiration from them - that the
proletarians of those nations would rise up against their
capitalist masters and inaugurate a new age of world history,
coming to the aid of the Russian pioneers.
When it was plain that none of this was going to happen, the party
ideologues got to work revising the revolutionary dogmas. One of
them - it was actually Joseph Stalin - came up with a new slogan:
"Socialism in One Country!"
I think that libertarians should take a leaf from Stalin's book.
They should acknowledge that the USA is, of all nations, the one
whose political traditions offer the most hospitable soil for
libertarianism. Foreigners, including foreigners possessed of the
urge to come and settle in modern, welfare-state America, are much
less well-disposed towards libertarianism.
Read the whole thing...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNiMDIxNTk3NGQ0NTUyYmExMWE0NGE2NTk1Mzc1Yzk=
|10.6.07 @ 4:14PM|#
For what it is worth, I thought we were discussing this...
David Brooks bemoans the GOP's retreat from Burkean
conservatism.
|10.6.07 @ 4:15PM|#
"Speech at the Robert Taft Club" Nov 11, Arlington VA
This event is listed on RP's website, but I can't access it because
facebook is the devil. Can anyone relay to me what's going on then?
I'd like to go to an RP event.
|10.6.07 @ 4:16PM|#
I think that libertarians should take a leaf from Stalin's
book.
Wow.
just....
wow.
|10.6.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Chalupa, first of all, its not like the chances of libertarians
winning is all that great anyway.
Secondly, Mexico just elected two conservative Presidents in a row.
Both of them would probably feel right at home in the GOP. Yes,
thats right, Latin Americans have diverse political views too! They
aren't all Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
So, is there anytime when its right to support a tax hike or oppose
a tax cut?
|10.6.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Cesar,
I get the sense that, if paired with removal of the income tax, a
tax on material throughput such as a carbon tax would get support
among some libertarians.
Not really a tax increase, however.
Fluffy|10.6.07 @ 4:25PM|#
I think it's right to oppose a tax cut when the legislature
makes it plain that they will not cut spending by a similar
amount.
Tax cuts that increase the deficit increase the long-term amount of
tax collected by the amount of the deficit plus financing
costs.
|10.6.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Obama's not toast. Only flag/Nazi's believe that an American
citizen can't choose weather to wear a pin on his lapel.
Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the little pins, my flag, and my
country. I just can't stand lapels, or people who want to tell me
what I have to wear.
Three cheers for Barak.
|10.6.07 @ 4:29PM|#
So, is there any time any of you all would support a tax
hike at the state or federal level? Or should it be no new taxes,
ever?
Seeing as how I'm a very minimal minarchist, bordering on
anarcho-capitalist, I can't think of any level of government in the
U.S. that needs more compulsory taxation to do essential tasks of
government.
So, yeah, no new taxes.
Neu Mejican -- I'm pro-immigration and a right-lib, not a
conservative. But, funny post!
|10.6.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Tax cuts that increase the deficit increase the long-term amount of
tax collected by the amount of the deficit plus financing
costs.
I hate it when that happens too but I've heard the argument that if
the tax cuts grow the economy, the debt will shrink as a percentage
of GDP anyway keeping it manageable. I'm not sure I buy it though,
I'd much prefer a (small) balanced budget.
|10.6.07 @ 4:36PM|#
prolefeed,
Sorry... I often read "right" and "conservative" positions as
equivalent even when I know they are not.
I will file you under "right-lib" from now on.
To be clear that means you are not one of those "South Park
Republican" libertarians, but more of a "Goldwater libertarian."
Right?
Fluffy|10.6.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Cesar -
Like with anything else financed by debt, there's always the chance
that the future value of the funds will be worth less to you [due
to inflation, increasing wealth - not the same thing - etc.] than
the present value of not employing financing.
But when you're talking about taxation, you're making that judgment
FOR EVERYONE. I don't want to be in the moral position of declaring
that future taxpayers shouldn't mind paying my debts because
they're so much richer it's no big deal. That certainly won't be
the case for every last taxpayer. And at least one guy will go to
prison because he can't come up with the scratch to pay my debts.
Is that right?
|10.6.07 @ 4:40PM|#
prolefeed,
I'm a very minimal minarchist, bordering on
anarcho-capitalist,
Make that a "Sex Pistols, V for Vendatta" libertarian.
|10.6.07 @ 4:41PM|#
But when you're talking about taxation, you're making that
judgment FOR EVERYONE. I don't want to be in the moral position of
declaring that future taxpayers shouldn't mind paying my debts
because they're so much richer it's no big deal. That certainly
won't be the case for every last taxpayer. And at least one guy
will go to prison because he can't come up with the scratch to pay
my debts. Is that right?
Thats correct, and I'm pretty much opposed to any kind of deficit
financing unless we find our selves in a real (not neo-con fantasy)
World War II-type situation. And that won't happen anytime soon.
Taking out any other kind of debt is irresponsible IMHO.
|10.6.07 @ 4:49PM|#
I don't think you should be absolutist on the subject of
surplus/deficit in the government, but too much of either is
probably not good...
Someone with more authority on the matter...
"Deficits must matter," Greenspan asserts, because
"uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high
inflation 'and economic devastation.'"
VM|10.6.07 @ 4:51PM|#
iih - interesting stuff. Hayward WI still has the Sons of Norway winter festival - I actually saw highlights of it on NRK, norwegian tv!
|10.6.07 @ 5:00PM|#
New topic-
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - More than a thousand Iraqis marched in west
Baghdad on Saturday in a rare public demonstration to protest
against a wall they say the U.S. military is planning to erect
around their neighborhood.
ADVERTISEMENT
Carrying an Iraqi national flag and banners condemning the wall the
marchers in the predominantly Shi'ite district of al-Washash
chanted "No, no to the wall. No, no to America."
The U.S. military sparked international outrage earlier this year
when it began erecting a high concrete barrier to shield the Sunni
Arab enclave of Adhamiya in east Baghdad from neighboring Shi'ite
communities....
|10.6.07 @ 5:02PM|#
So, is there any time any of you all would support a tax
hike at the state or federal level? Or should it be no new taxes,
ever?
Let me take a stab at this.
Assuming that programs that exist will remain, hell yes! Property
taxes for churches, Yes! Remove tax exemptions for charitable
giving, Yes! Disallow deductions for dependent children. Yes! Home
mortgage deuction, get rid of it! Any sane, moral (non judgemental)
tax code would obviously raise taxes for some and lower it for
others. Steve Forbes got hammered on the flat tax and I still don't
understand why. Sure his ultra dweebishness didn't help, but the
tax code as it stands today is best described as a
clusterfuck.Scrap it and start all over.
Oh yeah, if we get attacked/invaded too.
iih|10.6.07 @ 5:08PM|#
NM:
I would like to read iih's response to the argument Grande C
posts...
Are you referring to his super-long copy/paste comment? I skimmed
through it (this is the weekend, and I have been reading way too
many things at work this week), and the first thing that comes to
mind is that being a minority, I would feel safest if I were just
left alone ("don't tread on me"). I will respect all the laws, but
I hope to be left alone (especially in light of the extremely
anti-Muslim, anti-Arab rhetoric that often prevails among right
wingers.
In any case. that is not all. I am attracted to many ideals in
libertarianism (small government, low [if no] taxes, free markets,
freedom of association, etc). May be if I were an immigrant
residing in a predominantly Arab or Muslim neighborhood, I would
have felt less interested in libertarianism. But again, I have long
admired libertarian ideals without really knowing that they are
"libertarian".
I strongly believe that achieving uniform social economic equality
through government socialized programs is not right, or healthy.
The haves and the have-nots is certainly part of the human
existence, and is not necessarily an evil.
|10.6.07 @ 5:10PM|#
Neu Mejican-Of course Mexican's, the Spanish and Catholics have
made a mark in the U.S., especially in places like Texas, Florida,
California, or yes New Mexico. One has to only look at the place
names (San Antonio is not exactly an English name!). My argument is
that our legal and political institutions are "predominately"
traceable to Anglo-Saxon roots.
I don't dispute Cesar's contention that the philosophe's influenced
many Founders. But they did not borrow "French" or "Catholic" (the
philosophes were not a "Catholic" intellectual movement, remember
Voltaire's quote about priests?) INSTITUTIONS. The Anglo-Saxon's
had a history that had culminated in certain orientations, values
and norms: toleration, limited decentralized government,
representative government, the common law. None of these things
were practiced in France, Spain, Portugal. They were in England.
The Americans borrowed much of it wholesale, and other parts they
built upon and changed based on specific gripes they had with
England.
"The whole "America is nation of New England puritans" crap was
started by Henry Adams and others after the civil war in an attempt
to take the South more "un-American"."
I agree with that. Puritans and Cavaliers were different, for sure.
But one thing they were not was French, or Catholic (yes Fluffy the
Anglican Church would look much like Catholicism to us today, but
there were important though to us very subtle differences in
theology, important enough for folks to burn each other over
remember).
iih|10.6.07 @ 5:20PM|#
VM:
iih - interesting stuff. Hayward WI still has the Sons of
Norway winter festival - I actually saw highlights of it on NRK,
norwegian tv!
I wish if we had more of that stuff in North America. It would have
been pretty awesome from a cultural point of view.
By the way, Eastern Michigan (along lake Huron) has a very strong
French influence. Well, there is the strait of Détroit, going north
one passes through Au Gres, Au Sable, and all the way up to St.
Ignace and Sault St. Marie in the beautiful UP. All have a strong
French influence (mostly in places' names, but no longer culture,
sadly). I am really glad Quebec was able to retain its French
culture and heritage. I love that place (I partially reside there
actually). You should visit Quebec City sometime -- the only walled
city remaining in North America.
iih|10.6.07 @ 5:26PM|#
NM:
Hunter and the right wingers build a wall to keep the Mexicans out,
Israel builds a wall to keep Palestians out (under the claim that
it keeps terrorists out, though the wall zigzags right through the
West bank), US suggests building a wall to prevent a "civil war".
What's up with all the walls? A poor man's (a poor thinker's?) way
of resolving issues?
|10.6.07 @ 5:29PM|#
"For those saying that Parliament and common law were
essentially Protestant institutions, there are two serious problems
with that theory: no such institutions existed in Protestant
Germany or Sweden, and both Parliament and common law developed
were already firmly ensconced when England was still a Catholic
country. The Church of England was created by order of Parliament,
remember."
Crimethink-You raise interesting points.
1. The common law is usually dated back to Henry II in 1154. But
judicial independence among England's courts evolved mostly during
the Protestant period (starting in the 1530's with Henry VIII of
course). Our Founders, whom as I have noted were about 96%
Protestant and Anglo, had 250+ years of Protestantism (much of it
quite radical in opposition to Catholicism) behind them when they
rebelled.
2. Ditto Parliament which did not really find itself until the
Puritan and Glorious Revolutions (hint, these movements had much to
with Protestantism)
While there were many Catholics in the US at the time of the
founding, as I noted above, Catholics were viewed with great
suspicion and were simpy not among the shapers of our institutions.
This is why we did not have a Catholic President until 200 years
into our nations history (not to mention having exactly two
Catholic Supreme Court Justices in the first 120 years of our
history). Protestantism dominated our culture throughout most of
our history.
iih|10.6.07 @ 5:35PM|#
And I do appreciate Barrack's "pin" gesture. Yeah, why don't we actually discuss issues instead of evaluating which candidate is more patriotic (in which case, the answer would be counting the number of flag pins, flag stickers on car, mentioning the words "victory" and "honer", or, in Rudy's case, the number of times one mentions "9/11" and "Islamofascism").
|10.6.07 @ 5:36PM|#
iih,
Yes, that was the post.
It seems incorrect at its base to assume that country of origin
would be so tightly linked to political orientation, particularly
among those the decided to leave their home country.
I would think it is the whole "liberty and justice for all" thing,
and jobs, that drive most immigrants here.
MNG,
I am clear on your point that we can trace the roots of many
aspects of American institutions to the English. What you seem
willing to ignore is the influence that non-English INSTITUTIONS
had on the development of American institutions as they developed.
In the Southwest, the institutions of state were put in place,
largely, by the Spanish and it was those institutions that then
transformed through history into their current form. Many of the
Spanish ideals are reflected in the details of how those
institutions look today.
The oldest capital city in the US? Santa Fe, established as the
capital in 1610. By the time Anglos reached New Mexico, there were
institutions in place that predated those in the rest of the
country.
This, of course, ignore the institutions in place in native
communities, which clearly had an influence on the American
institutions and how the diverged from the English.
Complete the following lessons
http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/
and get back to me...
|10.6.07 @ 5:39PM|#
...the Anglican Church would look much like Catholicism to
us today, but there were important though to us very subtle
differences in theology, important enough for folks to burn each
other over remember.
That says alot about the stupidity of humanity doesn't it? One
Anglo Saxon institution the founding fathers deliberately did not
adopt/adapt, but instead downright rejected, was an established
religion. I was raised Roman Catholic (ex alter boy) and have
attended services of various protestant denominations. That
Lutherans and Roman Catholics went to war over such picayune
differences will always amaze me. Of course its all superstitious
claptrap, so killing over religion in general is mankinds greatest
folly. But arguments over the nature of the trinity,
transustantation, and the specifics of baptism must seem as bizarre
to someone unfamiliar with christianity as the schism between
Shiites and Sunnis seems to most westerners.
|10.6.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Sante Fe needs to be alongside Jamestown and Plymouth.
That Lutherans and Roman Catholics went to war over such
picayune differences will always amaze me.
As opposed to going to war so your nations color is the biggest on
the map? Really, not much has changed.
|10.6.07 @ 5:46PM|#
"Most Americans see the creed as the crucial element of their
national identity. The creed, however, was the product of the
distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. Key
elements of that culture include
the English language; Christianity; religious commitment; English
concepts of the rule of law, including the responsibility of rulers
and the rights of individuals; and dissenting Protestant values of
individualism, the
work ethic, and the belief that humans have the ability and the
duty to try to create a heaven on earth, a "city on a hill."
This is from Chalupa's post of Hunnington's article. I think most
American historians simply would not find that statement all that
objectionable. Certainly I do not need to argue that the English
language and Christianity were components of English culture? Or
that the idea of the rule of law was one that had been worked out
through several very bloody civil conflicts in England?Magna Carta,
Cromwell, Glorious Revolution, habeas corpus, grand juries,
toleration, etc., were all pivotal institutional movements in
English history and society (as opposed Cesar, to the ideas of this
or that particular philosophe [which could always be opposed with
this or that English Protestant thinker such as Locke, Blackstone,
Milton, Coke, Hooker, etc.).
Lastly is Protestantism. That it has been associated with
individualism (Luther did say man could go straight to God when the
Pope was saying it was the Church that should take care of such
things [re: individualism, look at the ideas on sola scripture by
Protestants and Catholics for example]), a certain work ethic, and
the "city on a hill" meme is hardly some way out idea among
historians and social scientists.
|10.6.07 @ 5:51PM|#
I'll make the same challenge I made to Cesar to you Neu Mejican:
name these Spanish institutions that were adopted.
I'm cringing to click on your link NM, becaus I fear it will be
about the Iroquois "effect" on our institutions. I've read of their
interesting governmental structures, but surely you don't think our
Founders studied the Iroqouis and based our institutions on
them?
|10.6.07 @ 5:55PM|#
As opposed to going to war so your nations color is the
biggest on the map? Really, not much has changed.
But in that circumstance there is always greed as a somewhat
rational motivation. I don't approve, but I understand the
reasoning. It's like vandalism vs. theft. I understand, but don't
approve theft. Vandalism, I neither understand or approve. Nobody's
been able to explain the rationale for some things (vandalism,
religious violence) to my satisfaction. Maybe I'm just dense.
|10.6.07 @ 5:56PM|#
MNG,
but surely you don't think our Founders studied the Iroqouis
and based our institutions on them?
I believe you need to read more Ben Franklin
http://courses.pasleybrothers.com/texts/franklin_indians.htm
|10.6.07 @ 5:56PM|#
The classical Republicanism of Rome were probably the biggest
influence. Our institutions look a bit more like theirs than like
those of England.
But that doesn't mean I think we are a Pagan-Mediterranean
country.;)
|10.6.07 @ 5:58PM|#
I'll make the same challenge I made to Cesar to you Neu
Mejican: name these Spanish institutions that were
adopted.
Slaughtering the natives?
|10.6.07 @ 6:00PM|#
From the Iroquois "Constitution."
"A bunch of a certain number of shell (wampum) strings each two
spans in length shall be given to each of the female families in
which the Lordship titles are vested. "
You're right, that is so close to the Constitution that the Seneca
must have been sitting right by Madison during the Constitutional
Convention! ;)
C'mon Neu Mejican, you are way smarter than this! Let's step aside
from the fact that while many historians are (quite rightly)
finding interesting instances of convergence and for some folks
unexpected sophistication in Native American thought that most top
mainstream historians think that these "contributions" were
marginal. Rather, common sense can tell you that you don't need
this to explain where the Constitution of Declaration "came" from.
The roots are plain and right there. Read Hooker, Blackstone, Locke
and you will see pretty much everything in the Declaration. The
Federalist Papers and Madison's notes on the Constitutional
Convention explain what the Founders were thinking when they came
up with what they did. There are records of the debates about
ratification and then concerning the Bill of Rights (much of the
provisions which are simply lifted from the things like the English
Bill of Rights).
This is not to take on jot away from the intelligence and
interesting aspects of Native American tribes, Catholic, French,
Spanish political thought. But their influence on our major
institutions are just minimal...
|10.6.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Nah J sub D, the Spanish just enslaved them. We saved that for the Africans instead.
iih|10.6.07 @ 6:04PM|#
NM:
I find this very flawed:
I think they are nuts because their enthusiasm on this matter
is suicidal to their cause. Their ideological passion is blinding
them to a rather obvious fact: that libertarianism is a peculiarly
American doctrine, with very little appeal to the huddled masses of
the third world. If libertarianism implies mass third-world
immigration, then it is self-destroying. Libertarianism is simply
not attractive either to illiterate peasants from mercantilist
Latin American states, or to East Asians with traditions of
imperial-bureaucratic paternalism, or to the products of Middle
Eastern Muslim theocracies.
It is very collectivist.
Not all Middle Easterners are "products of theocracies", for
example. Plain stupidly wrong. Libertarianism, at least
historically, has been the reason that attracted immigrants to
America, though back then it might not have been called
"libertarianism". This may have changed now. I for example have a
friend who was determined to have his child born here before
leaving for Egypt after finishing his research in the US so that
his son could get the benefits of being American before leaving. So
there are the twist-minded, too.
But libertarianism is in many ways ingrained in the human nature.
For example, I have come to realize, especially since becoming more
familiar myself with libertarianism, that my dad (who is
Alexandrian) has many libertarian-ideals in him that I probably got
from him. He has not heard of term "libertarianism" before I
mentioned it to him. He dislikes governments, is economically
conservative, believes in working hard to earn a good living, and
that those who don't should not complain about it, and should not
be given a "free ride". Still he is very compassionate and would
give charity. But he is ok doing that as a private matter, not to
be done by government.
I studied American history at college (it was an American college
in Cairo). Something(s) truly attracted me to America. These
included: individualism, competition, American "ruggedness", views
on government, independence of the states, etc. I find a lot of
that in "libertarianism".
Part of it is cultural, too. Col. William Ludlow in Legends of the
Fall is a hero to me. first time I watched that movie was back
home. This American character did, to me, (1) represent what many
Americans (especially in the West and North East [a la New
Hampshire] and North West [especially Montana]) were/are really
about, and (2) attract me a lot to what I came to know as
"libertarianism".
|10.6.07 @ 6:05PM|#
"The classical Republicanism of Rome were probably the biggest
influence."
In creating the structure of our federal government I totally agree
with you Cesar. But surely you realize that there is more to our
institutions than that? Hunnington names them in the article
Chalupa posted and that I put the excerpt from.
I don't want us to be talking past each other, I'm using what I
took to be a very standard definition of institutions which can be
summed up by an excerpt from the so-named wikipedia post*:
"The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior
patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal
organizations of government and public service."
*I'm not saying wikipedia is some authority of course
|10.6.07 @ 6:05PM|#
Lastly is Protestantism.
Which is ______? Do you mean non catholic christians? Baptists?
Holy Rollers? Quakers? the Amish? Unitarians? What?
|10.6.07 @ 6:08PM|#
MNG,
To be clear, I am claiming that contact with other cultures such as
the Iroquois influenced the thinking of the framers. Ben Franklin
had frequent and direct contact with the Iroquois and mentions
their institutions as models in his own writings. Influenced. For
the better.
In the Southwest, the institutions of government were already in
place by that time. When power shifted from Spanish to American,
the institutions became hybrids of the two, as is usually the case.
The Spanish policy towards the Pueblo tribes was a major driver in
changing policies towards native Americans after NM became part of
the US.
|10.6.07 @ 6:09PM|#
By the way Cesar reading the Latin and Greek classics was of course common in all Western intelligencia's at the time of our national formative period. The English, French, Russians, etc. did it, they all thought of Rome as part of "their" heritage (Russians used the term czar, short for Ceasar for example). Of course these readers of Roman political thought were hardly "Roman" in culture (they did not wear toga's or think their kings were Divine for example) anymore than you and I are French because we read and admire Montesquie's principles...
|10.6.07 @ 6:12PM|#
"contact with other cultures such as the Iroquois influenced the
thinking of the framers." Well of course, I admited as much. But I
maintain that it was small in comparison to the influence of, well,
their own culture.
"When power shifted from Spanish to American, the institutions
became hybrids of the two" As I said to Cesar, please name the
Spanish institutions that were adopted.
|10.6.07 @ 6:15PM|#
"Which is ______? Do you mean non catholic christians? Baptists?
Holy Rollers? Quakers? the Amish? Unitarians? What?"
J sub D
I'm afraid I don't know what else to say on this if you don't
realize that while, yes, there is great diversity within
Protestantism, that there is similarity as well (this is why they
have this term called "Protestantism" which we use for all these
denominations ;)).
iih|10.6.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Note -- my last (long) comment was more of a personal anecdote
at the cost of being too accurate in my description of the word
"libertarian", or American history. It describes how it all seemed
to me when I was younger.
MNG:
Interestingly, in Arabic cultural and political thought/discourse
"kaysar" (Ceser) is a symbol of tyranny and injustice.
|10.6.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Of course these readers of Roman political thought were
hardly "Roman" in culture (they did not wear toga's or think their
kings were Divine for example) anymore than you and I are French
because we read and admire Montesquie's principles...
Of course they weren't Roman culturally. But you were speaking of
institutions.
|10.6.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Re: Spanish policy towards the Natives.
While initially quite harsh and adversarial, after the pueblo
revolt kicked the Spanish out of New Mexico, the tone of relations
changed substantially. Pueblo citizens were afforded full Mexican
citizenship and treated with far greater respect than was standard
in the rest of the country. The treaty giving NM to the US kept
that status in place.
MNG,
Your "marginal" influences are the ones that make American
institutions importantly different than English ones.
Face it. America is a hybrid of many cultures. Always has been. It
is not a branch of English culture. It is distinct in important
ways the flow from the influence of non-English traditions.
|10.6.07 @ 6:19PM|#
You are so 1996! The Union Leader's editorial page is fully
neo-conized these days.
Sorry - I've been away from Manchester for a while.
|10.6.07 @ 6:20PM|#
I think it's cute when people like Gibson pretend it's still
November 2001.
People care desperately about the flag pin, and Rush Limbaugh was a
big winner over the "fake soldiers" flap.
That's right, Josh. On to victory! You don't have to rethink or
adapt. No, not at all. That's not a train bearing down on you.
|10.6.07 @ 6:20PM|#
Cesar-Please see the definition of institutions posted above.
It's pretty standard in pol sci and it certainly includes cultural
elements. In fact Hunnington's list is nearly exclusively
cultural.
"Interestingly, in Arabic cultural and political thought/discourse
"kaysar" (Ceser) is a symbol of tyranny and injustice."
iih-I'd say as a matter of history this Arabic understanding is
correct.
|10.6.07 @ 6:24PM|#
joe-
Isn't it cute when war supporters pretend like they're still in the
majority?
|10.6.07 @ 6:24PM|#
"Your "marginal" influences are the ones that make American institutions importantly different than English ones." I'm afraid I have to disagree NM. I'll need you to name some fundamental institutions that are not traceable to English history, and I gotta be frank, policy towards the pueblo ain't gonna cut it ("students, we are here to learn of the great American institutions: rule of law, limited government, religious toleration, and policy toward relations with the pueblo.")
|10.6.07 @ 6:26PM|#
"Isn't it cute when war supporters pretend like they're still in
the majority?"
Cesar-they can't help but think this way since they are the type of
conservative that never reads or watches any information source
that is not already in total agreement with themselves....
|10.6.07 @ 6:26PM|#
"When power shifted from Spanish to American, the
institutions became hybrids of the two" As I said to Cesar, please
name the Spanish institutions that were adopted.
The institutions of government used to govern the territory.
How much clearer do we need to get.
The US did not start from scratch and recreate all of the necessary
institutions to govern the vast NM territory. Many of the changes
after Hidalgo were in name only. The institutions persisted and
incorporated the rules of the new bosses. The resulting
institutions incorporated many of the existing frames and bent them
to fit with the laws and traditions of the new bosses (the US). The
conflict btw the systems were often important (see Land Grants),
but many of the "customs and behavior patterns important to a
society" are maintained today in New Mexico. At all levels of
society.
Fluffy|10.6.07 @ 6:29PM|#
"Libertarianism is simply not attractive either to illiterate
peasants from mercantilist Latin American states, or to East Asians
with traditions of imperial-bureaucratic paternalism, or to the
products of Middle Eastern Muslim theocracies."
I let this slip by, but on second thought, I have to ask:
Since the White culture you're trying to protect includes much more
than just WASPs, why would those traditions be less likely to
produce libertarians than those of Poland, Austria-Hungary, the
Ottoman Empire's European possessions, the princely states of
Germany, the monarchies of Scandinavia, etc.? Why would a Jew from
Imperial Russia be attracted to the tradition?
|10.6.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Guys-I've loved the debate, which I think has been very
intelligent. But I have spent way to much time on a Satuday when I
should be reading my school assignments and watching college
football!
I will say that I hope you guys are right that the best featues of
US culture are ones that will surive a rapid demographic change
that adds an unprecedented non-European population, because it
seems that is coming whether we like it (you guys) or not (me).
|10.6.07 @ 6:30PM|#
"students, we are here to learn of the great American
institutions: rule of law, limited government, religious
toleration, and policy toward relations with the
pueblo.")
That's a cute sarcasm, but if we are talking at that level, then
the English have no claim to the institutions you are claiming are
theirs. You need to be more specific in your claims, it
seems.
Rule of law is not an English concept, religious tolerance, nope --
they got both of those from the Romans. At least at the level you
seem to want to keep the discussion.
I am done, off to the movies.
|10.6.07 @ 6:35PM|#
MNG - Then Protestentism merely is defined as noc-catholic
christian? The differnces between protestent denominations are
legion and legendary. Or is it a null term?
V/R
ex-papist
J sub D
|10.6.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Cesar,
I like it when war supporters try to rationalize the polling
numbers.
1. Poll asking, say, "Should the Congress mandate a timetable for
the end of the war?" find that Americans answer yes by a 2:1
margin.
2. The War Party talking heads say, "Sure, most Americans want to
end the war, but they don't want to Surrender and Cut-n-Run and
Choose to Lose! When they say they want Congress to force the
President to end the war, they mean they want us to fight on until
victory, then come home. Not surrender or cut and run or choose to
lose!"
3. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson,
and Nancy Pelosi say they want to pass a bill setting timetables
for withdrawal.
4. The War Party explains, "They want to Surrender! They want to
Cut-n-Run! They want to Choose to Lose!"
|10.6.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Mister Nice Guy,
The Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination in
America, and that has nothing to do with English culture.
SIV|10.6.07 @ 6:46PM|#
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill
Richardson, and Nancy Pelosi say they want to pass a bill setting
timetables for withdrawal.
All ecepting Richardson have that "timtable" running indefinitely
later than 2013.
The Democrat Party Candidates want to win the War too.They want
Bush(or his inevitable GOP successor) to lose it.
|10.6.07 @ 6:51PM|#
MNG,
I hear you about the closed information loop among war supporters.
Combined with their habit of defining virtue as coterminus with
adherence to their political beliefs, they've entered into a status
I call "Mondale Mode."
Back in 1984, when people would ask leading Democrats about, say,
whether welfare needed to be reformed or whether it made sense to
try to outpace the Soviets in an arms race, the Democrats had no
real arguments to support their position. They'd just sneer about
racitsts in the first case, and city-busting warmongers in the
second. Of course Americans aren't going to vote for a racist,
city-busting warmonger for president - Americans, except for a
deplorable fringe, aren't racist, city-busting warmongers!
Therefore, Walter Mondale is going to win the election, because
he's the candidate standing up against racism and city-busting
warmongering.
|10.6.07 @ 6:51PM|#
Since the White culture you're trying to protect includes
much more than just WASPs, why would those traditions be less
likely to produce libertarians than those of Poland,
Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire's European possessions, the
princely states of Germany, the monarchies of Scandinavia, etc.?
Why would a Jew from Imperial Russia be attracted to the
tradition?
Huntington is probably of the opinion that letting in millions of
Irish Catholics, Italians, Slavs, and Jews in the late 1800s and
early 1900s was bad for America and probably thinks it weakened us.
He most likely laments the fact that Boston is filled with
Catholics and New York with Italians and Jews.
|10.6.07 @ 6:54PM|#
Thanks for the demonstration, SIV.
It's amazing how the Murtha Plan - withdraw almost all the troops,
keep just a small force in the region to clean up the mess we made
- has gone from what cut-and-runners want to do to what
stay-the-coursers want to do in just two short years.
Of course, the meaning of the Murtha Plan hasn't changed at all -
just the rhetoric used by those horrified by the collapse of the
War Party.
SIV|10.6.07 @ 7:04PM|#
joe,
The "Murtha Plan" was to withdraw to Okinawa while charging
innocent Marines with War Crimes for the Haditha incident.
|10.6.07 @ 7:24PM|#
Well, of course it was, SIV. After all, he's both an
America-hater, and a Surrender Monkey.
No way Americans are going to vote for candidates who endorse
positions like that. After all, Americans are neither
America-haters, nor Surrender Monkeys.
|10.6.07 @ 7:27PM|#
You think you're just not bothering to articulate intelligent
positions, SIV, because the rhetoric you're so in love with - the
rhetoric that you use to explain that the good and serious people
all agree with you - makes the hard work of considering and
contending with the arguments your opponents raise unnecessary.
Both intellectually unnecesary, and politically unnecessary.
Just like a certain presidential candidate Minnesota.
|10.6.07 @ 7:31PM|#
I guess it's still rational for Republicans to stick their heads
in the sand like that.
If there really has been a realignment away from them, going
squishy now isn't going to save them.
And if there hasn't, then trotting out the old slogans just might
work.
But then again, the "Democrats want to win the war
(meaning, keep pouring blood and treasure into finding the pony in
the manure pile of Dick and George's Great Adventure) just like
Bush" line of argument is just an effort to blur the differences
between the two parties, and that's not something you do unless you
know that the other guy's position is a lot more popular than
yours.
M|10.6.07 @ 7:42PM|#
being a minority, I would feel safest if I were just left alone
Cartoon shows two pigs sitting in a Realtor's office. One pig is
saying to the Realtor: "I think we'd feel more comfortable in a
Jewish neighborhood..."
|10.6.07 @ 7:56PM|#
But libertarianism is in many ways ingrained in the human
nature.
No, no, no!!!!!!
It is more human nature to see your daughter as property, burn
people who believe differentley at the stake and hate those
differentley from you.
If libertarianism is ingrained in human nature, why has the vast
majority of human history been one of slavery, extermination and
despotism?
The main exception to all this has been the enlightenment and
Anglo-Saxon individualism in particular.
Its not a fucking coincidence that Canada, Australia, and the US
have become first world countries while all of Latin America
hasn't. My theory is that it has much to do with genetics but even
if it didn't it has to do with culture.
Its a FACT that Mexicans overwhelmingly favor big government (save
me the story about your old Mexican neighbor that favored a flat
tax). When they've defected to the GOP its been due to their social
conservativism. If you care about small government and think its
contributed to this country's success you need to be
concerned.
Tribalism and collectivism is the natural state of man. This
capitalist West has improved human life more in the past 100-200
years then it had improved in all of human history before that.
Thousand year periods have passed in Asia and the Americas with
centralized government and art but without any improvement in
standard of living.
Stop taking civillization for granted. They do fall, and massive
immigration is often one of the main culprits.
iih|10.6.07 @ 8:03PM|#
Stop taking civillization for granted. They do fall, and
massive immigration is often one of the main culprits.
Often? How often was there massive immigration before
1900? Massive immigration is a direct product of ease of
transportation and cultural globalization. So how has been
often? What civilization failed because of massive
immigration?
iih|10.6.07 @ 8:05PM|#
Correction: So how has it been often? Which civilization failed because of massive immigration?
SIV|10.6.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Americans are neither America-haters, nor Surrender
Monkeys.
joe, as an America hatin' Surrender Monkey you know that you aren't
alone. There just isn't enough of you guys to take power without
holding your noses and backing some Patriotic Blue dog types.
Americans don't like corrupt Big Spenders either(not much of a
choice there, unfortunately)-which was the real reason for the 2006
Party shift in the legislative branch.
iih|10.6.07 @ 8:39PM|#
201 comments and we haven't really discussed much weekly politics yet. Seems like we're about to beat last weeks ~390 comments.
|10.6.07 @ 8:44PM|#
It's a badge of honor to be called that by you, SIV.
It's like being called a race traitor by David Duke.
But you just keep on keepin' on with those adorable ideas about
public opinion. Tell all your friends. Not one step back, comrade!
Don't change a thing.
|10.6.07 @ 10:01PM|#
"Rule of law is not an English concept, religious tolerance,
nope -- they got both of those from the Romans." Huh? You do know
that Rome fed Christians to the lions and that folks like Nero were
not exemplars of the rule of law, right?
"The institutions of government used to govern the territory.
How much clearer do we need to get."
Much. For example, I can mention an adversarial legal system, a
specific institution we inherited from England. Or the institution
of the sheriff, from the English position of the shire of the reeve
(the shire-reeve). Or the grand jury found in most states and the
federal government. Of the specific right against self
incrimination which evolved from the struggle in England to resist
being forced to swear oaths. So what I want to know is which
institutions did we inherit from the Spanish and Mexican
governments that existed in the New Mexico area? To say "the
institutions of the government" is nonsensical to me. You mean they
had mayors and sheriffs and the 5th amendment and representation
based on consent of the governed from specific geographical areas
and they just changed the name "Mexico" to "US" on all the
stationary???
"Then Protestentism merely is defined as noc-catholic christian?
The differnces between protestent denominations are legion and
legendary. Or is it a null term?" There is diversity within
Protestantism, yes, but unifying elements as well (primacy of the
Bible as the only source of truth [this induces individualism
because a person can read the Bible contra to an church, part of
why Protestantism is so fractured btw]), the importance of
justification by faith, etc).
|10.6.07 @ 10:07PM|#
"So how has it been often? Which civilization failed because of
massive immigration?" Well it just so happens since we are talking
about that area, Mexico encouraged immigration to their Texas
territory way back, and it ended up being quite bad for
them...
"The "Murtha Plan" was to withdraw to Okinawa while charging
innocent Marines with War Crimes for the Haditha incident." Of
course SIV would only prosecute troops that broke up a cockfight in
Haditha. Holding our soldiers accountable to our military code is
of course unpatriotic in the eyes of any good conservative. We'll
never defeat the enemy and teach Iraq the rule of law by following
the rule of law...
SIV|10.6.07 @ 10:15PM|#
It's like being called a race traitor by David
Duke.
You are such a typical liberal joe.
When all else fails(as it always does with Statist socialism) fall
back on charges of "RACISM!".
Hey, at least the Republicans are having a REAL primary. How does
it feel to be told by the "Establishment" who your candidate is
well before the Iowa caucus? Good luck with your "anti-war"
candidate. If National security was my "single issue" I wouldn't
mind her at all.
|10.6.07 @ 10:22PM|#
"Hey, at least the Republicans are having a REAL primary." You know SIV, if you ever lose your job as cockfighting referee ("Lil' Jerry's had enough, I call this fight!") you should go for political scientist with observations like that. Of course the fact that one candidate is doing better than all the others is indicative that there is not a "REAL" primary going on. So the GOP, which had run-away candidates for their nomination in 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988 and 1984 were not having a REAL primary? At what level of superiority of any given candidate does the primary become "UNREAL?"
Fluffy|10.6.07 @ 10:28PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy -
You just can't breeze over the question of "Which Protestantism"
like that. Or in the manner in which you blew it off when I pointed
out that Anglican Protestantism wasn't very proTESTant.
If you are repeating the thesis that there is something about
Protestantism that lends itself to liberty, and something about
Catholicism that does not, sect specifics become very important
indeed. France, Italy, and Ireland each have unique traditions of
revolution in the service of liberty, and you can't get much more
Catholic than that. I will repeat my assertion that the slight
doctrinal distinctions between Anglicanism and Catholicism are not
enough to hang a religio-political-economic-social theory on; there
just isn't enough "there" there to make one of them responsible for
liberty and one of them responsible for slavery.
"Real" protestants tended to end up forming bizarre theocracies or
encouraging the peasantry to bend over for their monarchical
masters. There were "real" Protestants in England and they tended
to produce proto-totalitarians like Cromwell and colonial American
communities that specialized in witch burning and expelling people
to form really free colonies like Rhode Island.
Weber's thesis always struck me as north European triumphalism
latching on to an incidental part of a culture and trying to use it
to explain a host of historical accidents or unrelated
phenomena.
|10.6.07 @ 10:29PM|#
It'll be interesting to see after the first couple of primaries,
which Hillary should win, but without a plurality I imagine, if
whoever comes in third (Edwards would be my geuss) will drop, and
then if the second place will get most of their support or if it
will go to Hillary. It's my hope that the support for all the other
candidates is indicative of anti-Hillary or a sensible recognition
that she would never win (and would be a horrible president). Sadly
in the polls I've seen even Obama-Edwards COMBINED loses to Hillary
in SC and NH...
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
|10.6.07 @ 11:18PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
You are shifting your criteria pretty quickly here. You want to
move from abstract "institutions" like "rule of law" to the
etymology of "sheriff" as if they were the same level of
abstraction. The term used for law enforcement in an English
speaking country is very likely to have an English root...what is
your point? If we stay at the level of abstraction of "rule of law"
then the concept of a "guy who enforces laws in your town/village"
is hardly an English innovation. At that level, the Taco gets to
count as an American institution with Mexican roots. Or our
favorite condiment, Salsa ;)(and bandits, don't forget the
bandits). You seem focused on legal institutions, btw. New Mexico,
California, Texas...do you want a list of traditions that are
practiced today in those areas that don't have English roots. The
list stretches from birth to marriage to death. From fiestas to
food to music to language...all positive influences on our
nation.
But the real root of the argument here boils down to this.
You see the US as a logical continuation of English traditions. But
even if we just stick to federal legal institutions, the US was
created as in improvement upon/ reaction against real world English
cultural institutions by individuals who were living in a
multi-ethnic society with concepts and institutions from other
European and non-European sources shaping their lives and ideals.
The result was a significant break from the English tradition in
important ways.
And it is the differences from the English tradition that are the
strength of our country. They were innovations. We are successful
as a nation because we draw from many traditions. We will continue
to be successful as long as we continue to draw from the diverse
input that other perspectives provide us with. It is the dynamism
of American culture that comes from diversity that is its greatest
strength. Your position is that we should limit that diversity. It
is a recipe for disaster that can only have its roots in a
misguided Burkean fear of the other and the new.
iih|10.6.07 @ 11:18PM|#
A good NYT article on the weakening political evangelical movement: For a Trusty Voting Bloc, a Faith Shaken.
iih|10.6.07 @ 11:25PM|#
It would be great if the evangelicals decide to form a sizable third party and stick to it for a while until a tri-party system replaces the race-to-the-bottom two-party system. This could lead to the formation of other stronger political blocs (e.g., the LP could have a bigger impact in elections). I think.
SIV|10.6.07 @ 11:26PM|#
iih,
I wish the political religous fundies where you come from were only
influential as ours.
|10.6.07 @ 11:29PM|#
You mean they had mayors ,[YES] and sheriffs [YES] and the 5th amendment [don't think so] and representation based on consent of the governed from specific geographical areas [on paper at least] and they just changed the name "Mexico" to "US" on all the stationary???[that's the right image for many daily functions of government]
iih|10.6.07 @ 11:32PM|#
I wish the political religous fundies where you come from
were only influential as ours.
Huh? Which ones are you referring to? Do you mean that "our"
fundies be influential here, or where they are? I would certainly
be scared of the kind of fundies one sees here or abroad from
comming to power. If we were in a different age and time, I may not
mind evangelicals being in power, as long as they respect the law
and the separation of Church and State.
|10.6.07 @ 11:37PM|#
MNG,
And don't forget... Mexico outlawed Slavery 40 years before the
civil war. One of the barrier to NM becoming a state right after
Hidalgo.
The arguments that were used sound eerily like yours... New Mexico
was considered too Hispanic and Catholic to assimilate into the
United States... oh and there was that whole no-slavery thing.
|10.7.07 @ 12:07AM|#
They were innovations. We are successful as a nation because
we draw from many traditions. We will continue to be successful as
long as we continue to draw from the diverse input that other
perspectives provide us with. It is the dynamism of American
culture that comes from diversity that is its greatest strength.
Your position is that we should limit that diversity. It is a
recipe for disaster that can only have its roots in a misguided
Burkean fear of the other and the new
So is your position that diversity is good just because it is
diversity? Isn't there such a thing as a negative cultural
influence?
Is European society enriched because now politicians and public
figures have to watch what they say under threat of death,
something unthinkable ten years ago?
And are we enriched by importing the lower classes of thirld world
countries that demand privildges never given to any other immigrant
group in history and a taste for identity politics?
iih|10.7.07 @ 12:18AM|#
Chalupa:
1. Are you aware that you are quite a supremacist? Is this your way
of attracting attention?
2. And are we enriched by importing the lower classes of thirld
world countries that demand privildges never given to any other
immigrant group in history and a taste for identity
politics?
-- Not all immigrants are poor! Many are highly educated. Just look
at Microsoft! Look at academe.
-- Sometimes you do want to attract "poor" immigrants. They'll do
what your "rich" citizens won't do. Canada, for example, grants
residency status to many "poor" immigrants who would drive
taxi-cabs, work at McDonald's and perform other jobs that Canadians
won't do. At least Canada is honest in its immigration policy. The
US, on the other hand, has seized granting residence to such
people. Hence, there is this huge illegal immigration
problem.
-- Whatever happened to "give me your tired your poor". That was
the default assumption about immigrants. The
Irish, Italian, and before them the English and French, were mostly
poor peasants.
-- Remind my again where you came from? You claim
to be Arab. Most Arab immigrants to this country came here quite
poor and made it to success.
|10.7.07 @ 12:23AM|#
Grande C,
So is your position that diversity is good just because it is
diversity? Isn't there such a thing as a negative cultural
influence?
Yes.
If you think of it in terms of a market of ideas, traditions, and
talents, a diverse market with many choices is good because it has
many choices. The consumer will choose the best among the choices
and reject the negative. Are you saying that you have the wisdom to
centrally plan a culture. That sounds like more of a recipe for
disaster than a centrally planned economy (being that an economy is
a subset of the culture).
Are there negative cultural influences?
Sure.
But who gets to decide ahead of time which ones those are?
|10.7.07 @ 12:28AM|#
Grande Cabron (you've earned the full title again),
Is European society enriched because now politicians and public
figures have to watch what they say under threat of death,
something unthinkable ten years ago?
Tell me whether/why you think this is a good example to make your
point. The difference between Europe and America is in large part
the willingness to assimilate new members into the society while
allowing them to maintain their cultural identity. In many European
countries the relationship is often more adversarial...requiring
rejection of the individuals home culture to be accepted in the new
country. As a result the integration of Muslim immigrants in the US
and in Europe have much different outcomes.
|10.7.07 @ 12:31AM|#
a taste for identity politics?
That is a gem coming from someone arguing the xenophobic position
on the subject of immigration.
iih|10.7.07 @ 12:36AM|#
NM:
Tell me whether/why you think this is a good example to make
your point. The difference between Europe and America is in large
part the willingness to assimilate new members into the society
while allowing them to maintain their cultural identity. In many
European countries the relationship is often more
adversarial...requiring rejection of the individuals home culture
to be accepted in the new country. As a result the integration of
Muslim immigrants in the US and in Europe have much different
outcomes.
Ouch! Slam dunk!
|10.7.07 @ 12:38AM|#
And are we enriched by importing the lower classes of thirld
world countries that demand privildges never given to any other
immigrant group in history and a taste for identity
politics?
That would be a, "yes."
Although I don't see a lot of the demand for "privildges" in the
behavior of most immigrants,legal or illegal...unless you call pay
for a day's work a "privildge."
Pride in one's heritage (aka. "identify politics") is, of course,
only warranted if you have the right heritage. Is that your message
here?
iih|10.7.07 @ 12:40AM|#
NM:
In addition to our agreement on position, I think you may agree
with me that illegal immigration is a different question.
My doing things the legal way, have cost me time and money to be
here legally. Illegal immigrants avoided all that, and also broke
the law. Now, I believe that in a free society and markets,
restrictions on immigration may be lifted (something I favor once
the world reaches a level of equilibrium between the developed and
under-developed countries -- something happening as we are
speaking), and that is a different story from what we have now.
|10.7.07 @ 12:49AM|#
I would like to apologize to Grande C, for the insult (I
sometimes forget your thin skin). The "cabron" was uncalled
for.
Let's keep it civil.
Why do you feel that I (as a umpteenth generation English
immigrant) should have kept your Palestinian/Jordanian Catholic
parents out of the country? What harm have they caused us? If their
example is an exception to your point, how so? What made them
worthy immigrants? How did they manage to avoid the negative
cultural influences of their third world origins? What metric
should we use to determine others that are worthy of inclusion in
our club?
I find the desire to go make a new start in America to be a pretty
good litmus test for whether someone is going to be a positive
influence on the country.
|10.7.07 @ 12:55AM|#
iif,
My doing things the legal way, have cost me time and money to
be here legally. Illegal immigrants avoided all that, and also
broke the law.
I, of course, agree with my fellow New Mexican MikeP on this
issue.
The statutes that create barriers to legitimate immigration are the
problem far more than the character of those that risk breaking the
law to find a better life.
Those like yourself that are willing to play by the rules, of
course, deserve due praise for their (your) respect of our
laws.
It is important to remember, however, that the only reason there
are illegal immigrants to the US is because there are American
employers with equal disregard for the laws. When laws do not serve
the interests of the society at large and create an easily
exploitable underclass it is the laws that deserve scorn, not the
law-breakers.
iih|10.7.07 @ 12:56AM|#
NM:
You embarrass me. I apologize to Grand Chalupa, too, for my calling
him a "supremacist". J sub D once advised me to exercise my freedom
of speech and throw in an insult here and there once in a while.
Well, I tried it and it feels strangely good (but I always do feel
bad afterwards). So it is time to slow down on the insulting.
iih|10.7.07 @ 12:59AM|#
NM:
I wouldn't even blame the employers. I would blame the law makers
and the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of their constituents. But,
still, I have to remind myself of their right to ask their
politicians to do what they want. It is a democracy after all.
|10.7.07 @ 1:01AM|#
iih,
A good insult is welcome in my culture, but GC and I have had an
ongoing discourse and it has become clear to me that he takes them
too literally. Around my house if you can't have an argument with
someone who calls you an ignorant fool without hitting back in kind
(and proving your point) then you have nothing to complain about.
But I come from a crude & crass English stock which is
responsible for many of the negative aspects of American
culture.
;^)
|10.7.07 @ 1:02AM|#
Not all immigrants are poor! Many are highly
educated.
Yes, but we're talking about illegals from Mexico here. Try harder
to follow along.
Sometimes you do want to attract "poor" immigrants. They'll do
what your "rich" citizens won't do. Canada, for example, grants
residency status to many "poor" immigrants who would drive
taxi-cabs, work at McDonald's and perform other jobs that Canadians
won't do. At least Canada is honest in its immigration policy. The
US, on the other hand, has seized granting residence to such
people. Hence, there is this huge illegal immigration
problem.
How exactly do these jobs get done in countries that have almost no
immigration, some of which have a higher per capita GDP than we
do?
If we stopped illegal immigration its not that construction or fast
food service wouldn't get done. The wages would simply rise to the
level that Americans will do the job.
iih|10.7.07 @ 1:07AM|#
NM:
But I come from a crude & crass English stock which is
responsible for many of the negative aspects of American
culture.
Yes, tell me about it. This English boys at school (K-12 I went to
a British school in Cairo before going to the American Univ. in
Cairo) were the meanest, most violent kids in school -- real
bullies.
|10.7.07 @ 1:13AM|#
Yes, but we're talking about illegals from Mexico here. Try
harder to follow along.
It seems I withdrew my insult too soon.
iih|10.7.07 @ 1:13AM|#
Yes, but we're talking about illegals from Mexico here. Try
harder to follow along.
Haha. Nice try. Where have you qualified immigration with
illegal. None of your comments above made such
qualifications (I just checked).
How exactly do these jobs get done in countries that have
almost no immigration, some of which have a higher per capita GDP
than we do?
Name one such country.
NM:
It seems I withdrew my insult too soon.
Yes! :-)
|10.7.07 @ 1:26AM|#
Ok, I'm going to try to deal with this evil duo all in one post
and then off to bed.
Although I don't see a lot of the demand for "privildges" in
the behavior of most immigrants,legal or illegal...unless you call
pay for a day's work a "privildge."
Lets start with billingual education. To answer your other point,
my parents didn't demand I get taught in Arabic. I could barley
even speak the language till I took it up in college. If some Arab
activist victimization mongerer came to them and told them it was
there right for their kids to have a billingual education in
America they would've laughed in their face. And unlike some Muslim
Arabs in the town I grew up with, my parents didn't complain to the
school about Christmas and Haloween decorations.
My parents never had the desire to watch a presidential debate in
Arabic. They didn't openly talk about reclaiming any of the nation
as part of their country of origin. They didn't lobby for
affirmative action, etc.
And they stayed sober and went to college too, but mentioning that
would be god forbid, racist.
Are there negative cultural influences?
Sure.
But who gets to decide ahead of time which ones those
are?
I dunno, maybe the citizens of the country?
Haha. Nice try. Where have you qualified immigration with
illegal. None of your comments above made such qualifications (I
just checked).
That was the point of the original article I linked some 200 posts
ago. If illegal immigration from Mexico stopped we wouldn't have a
problem. There wouldn't be enough Spanish speakers to turn the
country billingual and Hispanics would have to learn the lanaguage
and assimilate like every other group has.
Name one such country.
Norway and Ireland. They somehow still manage to have fast food
restaurants.
|10.7.07 @ 1:46AM|#
Grande, grande, grande,
You just don't get it.
Your parents were no different than the vast
majority of immigrant parents coming from Mexico (legal or
illegal). By your criteria, just being from a 3rd world country
would have disqualified them from the opportunity to provide you
with your life in America. You want to deny other parents the
opportunity to provide their children with similar benefits. It is
typical "shut the door behind me" thinking. You want to be the last
one to benefit, because those coming up behind you just don't get
it like you and your parent did.
Well fuck that. Your attitude may be your own best argument. If
you, as a 2nd generation immigrant, are a typical example of the
attitudes that immigrants bring to the country, then maybe we do
want to shut our borders and keep the savages out. Enough fuckwits
like you might get together and turn our country into a xenophobic
hellhole.
Luckily I know that you are the exception rather than the
rule.
Thanks iih for providing a counter example.
iih|10.7.07 @ 1:54AM|#
Norway (5.7 million people)-- Quickly googled it. But it seems
that more than half of the population growth is from
immigration.
Ireland (7 million people)-- again a quick Internet search seems to
show that a lot of immigration from former poor,
former communist, central European countries (especially Poland)
have been immigrating to Ireland. In 2005, there were 180,000 (3%
of the current population) immigrants.
I mention the overall population size of these countries to make
the point that, while significant Western countries, are relatively
very small ones.
|10.7.07 @ 2:36AM|#
And they stayed sober and went to college too, but
mentioning that would be god forbid, racist.
I don't even get this one.
There seems to be some racist slur against someone implied, but I
don't know who he is aiming it at.
Do most Palestinian/Jordanians have a drinking problem?
Or is he talking about Mexicans?
And how are staying sober and going to college related?
I am confused by Grande Cabron's racist kung fu mind tricks. Very
very dangerous.
|10.7.07 @ 2:44AM|#
And unlike some Muslim Arabs in the town I grew up with, my
parents didn't complain to the school about Christmas
More mind tricks...
Your parents were CATHOLIC if we can believe your previous post,
why would they complain about Christmas?
Pinche Naco baboso wanna be bolillo
|10.7.07 @ 3:08AM|#
Thanks iih for providing a counter example.
Hey, NM, you are welcome.
Ha, get a room you two. And enjoy deluding yourself about the
compatability of all peoples and cultures. Iih can even even
explain to you how the religion that commands slaughter of Jews,
allows the beating of wives and calls itself the revealed word of
God is compatable with liberty and plurality.
You addressed absolutley nothing I've said. I pointed out what
makes the difference between good immigrants and bad ones. I also
didn't say that every third world immigrant should be excluded but
what are facts when you are only interested in finding something to
help you make the case of your own moral superiority?
And I'm not going to check this thread again. No point in arguing
with those who are incapable of discusing without throwing a
tantrum. Go ahead and continue to feel tough behind the computer
screen and make sure to pat iih on the head again for continuing to
drink the diversity kool-aid.
|10.7.07 @ 3:28AM|#
No point in arguing with those who are incapable of
discusing without throwing a tantrum.
*And Grande Cabron walks into the sunset with a cocky step, assured
that he has won yet another round against the kool-aid drinking
hippies that infest the new home country his parents secured for
him.*
"My reasoning was sound. They could not but be defeated by my clear
explanations about the traits of good immigrants and bad
ones."
*places ten gallon hat squarely on head*
"Yup, the bad ones ask for privildges, drink too much, and don't go
to college. By which I mean the Mexicans. The dirty, dirty
Mexicans. Damn them. Damn them to hell."
|10.7.07 @ 3:31AM|#
Class pay attention.
Todays English words.
privileges
discussing
Repeat after me...P - R - I -...
Guy Montag|10.7.07 @ 7:12AM|#
C-SPAN is taking calls on the US being a Christian nation.
If any of you folks call in, please use your handles?
|10.7.07 @ 7:56AM|#
NM-The institution of the sheriff is certainly much more than
the origin of the word. Yes, all societies have some law
enforcement, but sheriffs are a unique institution with rather
wierd powers and responsibilities that developed historically, and
I don't think they had that kind of duck in pre-US New Mexico or in
Spain
http://www.hscounty.com/PDF/History%20of%20the%20Office%20of%20Sheriff.pdf
This "office" or institution in the US can be directly traced to
English origins, not Spanish or Catholic or French. Ditto for the
other things I mentioned (grand juries, rights against self
incrimination, 1st Amendment, etc).
"If we stay at the level of abstraction of "rule of law" then the
concept of a "guy who enforces laws in your town/village" is hardly
an English innovation."
The rule of law of course means much more than the availibility of
law enforcement!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
The English had been working this out for centuries. When the Sun
King in France was proclaiming "I am the state" England had already
gone through Magna Carta, habeas Corpus, the Puritan and the
Glorious Revolution. As we see in Iraq you need institutions that
resonate and have developed historically to build upn, not just the
ideas of a few folks (many Iraqi thinkers have written stuff on
limited government, seperation of church and state, etc., but it
has not been institutionalized in that area).
"the US was created as in improvement upon/ reaction against real
world English cultural institutions by individuals who were living
in a multi-ethnic society with concepts and institutions from other
European and non-European sources shaping their lives and ideals.
The result was a significant break from the English tradition in
important ways."
Well undoubtedly your last comment is true, there were important
breaks. But in other very important ways there was much continuity.
And while they were undoubtedly aware of innovative institutions
from France, Spain and the Iroqouis these had comparitively small
impact on the structure of our society. They were in many way a
very homogenous bunch. The Declaration of Independence was signed
by ONE Catholic and as far as I can tell by all former British
citizens, and by no Spaniards or Mohawks. The number of Catholics
in the Constitutional Convention SOARED to 2. The first Congress
had a stunning 1 Catholic. From the inception of the Supreme Court
to the 1890's we had a whopping 2 Catholic justices and the first
Jewish justice came in at 1916 while the first Hispanic justice was
1932.
So yes, of course, hamburgers and salsa and such are part of our
cultural mix. But our governmental and legal institutions are
heavily products of an Anglo-Saxon Protestant band of
brothers...
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
|10.7.07 @ 8:08AM|#
"We are successful as a nation because we draw from many
traditions. We will continue to be successful as long as we
continue to draw from the diverse input that other perspectives
provide us with. It is the dynamism of American culture that comes
from diversity that is its greatest strength. Your position is that
we should limit that diversity."
This, along with its close kin "see we took in so many immigrant
groups and look how strong we are" is certainly an article of faith
around here...But I'm not sure about these arguments...It seems to
come from having the following syllogism:
1. The US has had a lot of immigration
2. THe US is currently successful
3. Therefore the immigration is the cause of the success.
Of course that is bad reasoning. It's like saying:
1. Hemingway was a great writer
2. Hemingway had a drinking problem
3. Therefore the drinking problem is what made Hem's writing so
great
All that can be proven from the US facts is that a lot of
immigration will not necessarily sink a nation. But who knows if,
given our natural resources, our geographically favorable
conditions (oceans protect a young growing nation, look at what the
Channel did for England) and world events whether we would be
greater without as much immigration (and I say that as someone of
German and Irish background)?
For every Einstein you bring up I can bring up a Lucky Luciano, and
for every good institution immigration has brought I can think of
something like the mafia...Who can say what the overall net effect
has been?
Fluffy|10.7.07 @ 9:03AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy -
I'd be interested in hearing a specific delineation of the features
of Anglicanism, not present in Catholicism, that cause it to
produce liberty.
And I'd also like to point out that it didn't produce liberty
everywhere, since Anglicans were more than happy to hold Irish
Catholics in what amounted to peonage, and it took a revolutionary
struggle by Catholics to kick them the fuck out.
The Catholic French also had a revolution for liberty, and its
failure had very little to do with France's Catholic history and
had a lot to do with the fact that France was simultaneously
invaded by or fucked with by every monarchy in Europe, including
the blessed liberty-loving Anglicans from England.
The sun king was able to declare that he was the state because the
centralizing monarchy won the struggle against its regional
landowners in France, and lost it in England. These events had
extraordinarily little to do with religion. In fact, the religious
history of both nations is better understood as an effect of the
political struggle, and not as a cause.
I would also point out that in Germany, the liberty tradition was
much stronger in Catholic Bavaria than in Protestant Prussia. Why
didn't Protestantism work its magic in Germany too?
Annonymous|10.7.07 @ 9:08AM|#
"My reasoning was sound. They could not but be defeated by
my clear explanations about the traits of good immigrants and bad
ones."
that was my impression of the discussion. he expressed it pretty
elequently and you answered nothing and just threw out cheap
insults. its a wonder anybody disscuses anything online, besides
those who want to be able to do throw out insults they can't in
real life.
|10.7.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Fluffy-I don't argue that Protestantism alone caused a movement
towards liberty and individualism (though many scholars do just
that by the way). I think a lot of it had to do with the specifics
of English history (of which Protestantism is one element), which
is what Hunnington said.
But having said that, I think Anglicans do have different
theological points that are subtle yet utlimately profound (these
are after all theological systems and they did not kill each other
because they were crazy, a subtle difference here or there can lead
to vast theological differences down the theological line).
However, I don't have to argue this point as it is usually the
Puritan and Dissenting traditions that are associated with liberty
movements in England (look at the effects and changes in
institutional arrangements following the Puritan and Glorious
Revolutions, and these events had "extraordinarily MUCH to do with
religion"). Now if you want to know the elements of Puritan and
Dissenting theology that effect liberty let me know, cause that's a
whole post in itself (and mine have been rather long lately [sorry
folks]).
"The Catholic French also had a revolution for liberty, and its
failure had very little to do with France's Catholic history" Uhh,
that Revolution came relatively late to France (in fact notonly
after the Puritan or Glorious ones, but after the American one),
and even the French supporters widely acknowledged that the
Catholic Church played a large role in keeping it from happening
earlier.
I do not know much about German Bavaria versus Prussia, but I know
a little about Spain and Portugal, perhaps two of the most Catholic
nations in Europe. How did their liberty movements work out?
|10.7.07 @ 9:47AM|#
"which is what Hunnington said."
Actually fluffy, what Hunnington said is much more modest so I
should correct myself. It was simply that Angl-Saxon and
Protestantism had the lions share of influence on the development
of America's creed and institutions. Do you want to argue that
Catholicism's influence rivaled that of Protestantism in those
areas?
|10.7.07 @ 10:04AM|#
Imagine you are an English peasant circa 1530. While you know of
various "heretics" who have questioned the bureaucratic centralized
ossified Universal Church sanctioners of superstition and
hierarchy, you also know such people are burned by the same
group.
Suddenly your King announces that Church is bogus. Monasteries are
dissolved, pilgrammages are discouraged, relics publicly denounced
and scoffed at. It is encouraged for folks to read the Bible, some
are bought and distributed. Even English ones make appearances! For
the next few decades each side denounces the other as false and
evil. Various dissenters are emboldened to make and hand out tracts
and preach in the town square (though as the tides shift many are
killed)....
This could not help but have a shaking up of your worldview, a
loosening up of dogmas. Now you might also start to question why
the King and the Aristocrats have so much say, why you can't trade
with your Dutch brethern...
This is a simplified version fluffy, but surely you can see the
line of argument how a reformation, even one with what to us seem
to be very subtle theological underpinnings, can have profound
social/political ramifications...
Guy Montag|10.7.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Actually, I believe we have current evidence that Greek
supersticion is the most powerful force in mid-America. The
billygoat curse is still in force. Cheeburgur! Cheeburgur! Cheep!
Cheep!
Meanwhile in the east, the Curse of William Penn is still in force.
Talk about a penalty for a zoning violation!
Fluffy|10.7.07 @ 10:26AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy -
I actually would not dispute that American institutions grew out of
the events of English history. I would merely argue that our
political institutions are the result of English political and
economic history, and that the impact of religious and "cultural"
factors was ancillary and incidental, and that Weber thinks the
fleas are directing the dog.
I would also point out that the qualities of "Protestant-ish" and
"English-ness" that supposedly led to American liberty don't really
apply themselves easily to modern situations. A Mexican farmer is
actually much closer to "Americanism" in religious and cultural
terms than a 17th century Puritan. The Mexican farmer is likely to
be much more comfortable with the scientific world view, with the
basics of modern political forms, and even with a system of
currency-based trade and speculation, than the guys who got on the
Mayflower.
17th century England would have been an extremely dangerous and
alien place to any modern American who suddenly found himself
there. 21st century Mexico isn't that different from the United
States, in the final analysis, when you take a centuries'-long view
that includes all the different cultures we're talking about. The
cuisine is different, the booze and the whores are cheaper, and
their political economy functions marginally less well than ours -
and that's about it. Mexico is certainly much easier to include in
our "culture" than the [admittedly instrumental] WASP culture prior
to the formation of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
|10.7.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Fluffy-I think you are giving religion too small a role in these changes, but overall I agree that in many ways a Mexican farmer would be much more comfortable in our current nation than an Bay Colony Puritan would in ours or vice versa. The real argument is how would the current Mexican farmer, in large concentrated numbers within the US, feel about the "fruits" of what those Puritans planted, that is Hunnington's list of components of our culture: English, Christianity, individualism, work ethic, rule of law and responsibility of leaders to the ruled (I would add certain rights). I will readily grant many of these strike me as unproblemattic (Christianity, hard work, and even eventually English) while others I have more doubts about (rule of law, responsibility of leaders, individualism). But these are empirical matters.
VM|10.7.07 @ 11:02AM|#
HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE oh yeah!
CLEVELAND ROCKS!!!
Sigh, tho, the Cubbies ended with a whimper.
Can't
Understand
Baseball
Strategy
???
Fluffy|10.7.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Hey, good discussion.
Branching out a bit, Ron Paul drew 1500 people to a rally in
Nashville, and people had to be turned away at the door of the full
venue. BOOYAH!
libertreee|10.7.07 @ 11:50AM|#
M-The institution of the sheriff is certainly much more than the origin of the word. Yes, all societies have some law enforcement, but sheriffs are a unique institution with rather wierd powers and responsibilities that developed historically, and I don't think they had that kind of duck in pre-US New Mexico or in Spain
I would suggest that the Sheriff was at first an ignoble officer. I
think you are NOT going far enough back in history. IMHO we need to
look more to the era before 1000 AD, the conquest of England by
Normandy, to get a real libertarian perspective. The Celts,
Germanic Anglo Saxons, Viking culture in Iceland, etc. All shared a
far more decentralized position. Although in the 900 AD era the
Anglo Saxons, always at war, began to centralize political power,
it was the invasion by the Normans that changed everything --kind
of a medieval 9-11. The centralized power in the King. The Sheriff
was the bad guy, like the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood. (an
essentially true story).
A lot of the so called liberty institutions we have and cherish now
(trial by jury, rule of law,representation by attorneys) were evil
at the outset, and only became better in comparison as the state
became worse and worse.
Democracy, including Republican Democracy, is nothing but a
reformation of monarchy. And in some ways monarchy might be better.
To get to where we need to go we have to go back to the dark and
early medieval times for political structure, to rule of law
without laws.
We are starting to. Somalia is the best current example. The
further you go from Mogadishu and the struggle for power over the
state, the more you get to a peacefull existence with a very
ancient form of law, kritarchy, called XEER.
The candidacy of Ron Paul, the secession of Scotland, the secession
movements in the US, the breakup of USSR, all point to a devolution
from the Westphalian nation state model to more decentralized
governance.
BTW, most of the Revolutionary officers under Washington were
Scotch-Irish. Protestants, sure, but Irish as well. Washington to
honor them joined the Royal Order of Hibernians.
M|10.7.07 @ 12:15PM|#
That should be
NM-The institution of the sheriff...
Some of us resist immigration into diverse, albeit interesting
threads.
Guy Montag|10.7.07 @ 12:44PM|#
Ron Paul drew 1500 in Nashville?
I welcome the Al Gore/Ron Paul faceoff in November 2009!
|10.7.07 @ 12:54PM|#
MNG,
This "office" or institution in the US can be directly traced
to English origins, not Spanish or Catholic or French.
I think you see more continuity in the shape of that office than is
warranted through the intervening years. Do you really think the
current crop of sheriff's have duties and operational guidelines
that resemble the Shire-reeve closely enough to claim they are the
SAME institution? Really? The leader of the county? Don't sound
right to me.
From your link.
To be appointed sheriff was considered a significant honor. The
honor, however, was a costly one. If the people of the county did
not pay the full amount of their taxes and fines, the sheriff was
required to make up the difference out of his own pocket.
Furthermore, the sheriff was expected to serve as host for judges
and other visiting dignitaries, providing them with lavish
entertainment at his own expense.
Sounds just like my local county sheriff.
About as close as the Iroquois quote you decided to pull out.
This, along with its close kin "see we took in so many
immigrant groups and look how strong we are" is certainly an
article of faith around here...
Well, I wouldn't say it is any more of an article of faith than
your assertions regarding the centrality of English traditions to
our nations success. The syllogism looks like this, right?
1. The US is currently successful
2. The US adopted many English legal institutions
3. Therefore Hemmingway's drinking is why he is a great writer (or,
therefore the English traditions are the cause of our
success).
For every Einstein you bring up I can bring up a Lucky Luciano,
and for every good institution immigration has brought I can think
of something like the mafia...Who can say what the overall net
effect has been?
Well, you seem to have determined the net effect of the specific
English traditions you feel are central to our success. Why does
that game only go one way?
|10.7.07 @ 12:58PM|#
MNG,
The real argument is how would the current Mexican farmer, in
large concentrated numbers within the US, feel about the "fruits"
of what those Puritans planted, that is Hunnington's list of
components of our culture: English, Christianity, individualism,
work ethic, rule of law and responsibility of leaders to the ruled
(I would add certain rights). I will readily grant many of these
strike me as unproblemattic (Christianity, hard work, and even
eventually English) while others I have more doubts about (rule of
law, responsibility of leaders, individualism). But these are
empirical matters.
It is empirical, yes. So far we have an experiment with over 26
million individuals who I would contend provide a positive
influence on our culture and society. Why not point to some
evidence that the culture those 26 million people have brought to
our country has created problems, led to weakening of our political
and legal institutions. Remember, of course, that many million of
them have been in the country longer than the English.
Are we to blame the current Bush administrations lack of respect
for our basic institutions on the Mexicans? He was a Texas governor
after all. Are the Mexicans disproportionately supportive of
current political positions that reduce freedom? They do vote
democratic, except when they don't (like 40% or so of the
time).
The main point you are missing is that Hunnington's list of
components of our culture is a mostly meaningless hodge-podge that
he uses to justify his xenophobia. There is no more evidence to
support that list as central to our development as a country than
there is to hang our hat on another list with different ill-defined
institutions that we believe sum up or nation of 300 million
souls.
xenophobia [(zen-uh-foh-bee-uh, zee-nuh-foh-bee-uh)]noun: An
unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or
anything perceived as foreign or different.
The first three words are the important ones here. Unreasonable
fears can drive elaborate rationalizations.
|10.7.07 @ 1:06PM|#
The problems in Latin America have a lot to do with the Spanish
colonial system. The English treated their colonies as little
Commonwealths while the Spanish treated theirs as conquered slave
kingdoms.
The Portuguese in Brazil were even worse--they didn't even allow
printing presses there until the Portuguese court moved there in
the 1800s!
The situation in Latin America especially since the 1980s has
imrpoved dramatically. The majority of Latin America's people live
in liberal democracies. Chavez is not a portent of the future, hes
a throwback to the 1960s.
Again, Mexico has elected twice in a row what are essentially
Republican-like Presidents.
Even most of the "socialists", like the Presidents of Chile and
Brazil aren't any more scary than say, John Kerry. Neither of them
are rolling back the pro-market reforms carried out in both
countries in the 80s and 90s, they realize they work.
Hernando de Soto is one of the greatest free market economists.
The Mystery of Capital is probably one of the best
explinations of poverty in the developing world I've ever read. His
home country? Hes from Peru.
Its supreme arrogance to think Anglo-Saxons are the only people in
the world who understand free markets and capitalism, and that all
Latin Americans are un-repentant socialists.
|10.7.07 @ 1:08PM|#
HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE oh yeah!
CLEVELAND ROCKS!!!
Sigh, tho, the Cubbies ended with a whimper.
Can't
Understand
Baseball
Strategy
???
On one hand, I hate Cleveland, that mistake by the lake. The Rock
'n' Roll Hall of Fames sucks! They have a crappy zoo and the girls
are ugly trollops.
On the other hand, The Indians are playing the Yankees for a trip
to the ALCS right now. I would root for Satan's legions if they
were playing the A=hole team from the Bronx.
Decisions, decisions... GO CLEVELAND!!! Kock some
ass and don't even bother to take names. We did it last your, the
resposibility of Yankee thrashing has fallen to Cleveland.
GO INDIANS!!!
|10.7.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Chalupa-
I think the fewer white people are in each state, the more
successful it is. That explains why California, Illinois, and
California are more successful states than Arkansas, West Virginia,
and Maine, all of which are some of the poorest states in the
country.
Thats pretty much your logic with the US and Canada vs. Latin
America.
thoreau|10.7.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Here's the real question: Would Chalupa go to a Persian
dentist?
Or is he too macho for that?
|10.7.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Here's the real question: Would Chalupa go to a Persian
dentist?
Only if the Dentist was Zoroastrian.
My dentist is Pakistani and I don't wet my pants that he might cut
my head off if I say the wrong thing, but I wouldn't put it past
Chalupa.
|10.7.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Annonymous,
he expressed it pretty elequently and you answered nothing and
just threw out cheap insults.
I believe I addressed any serious point Chalupa made. (see the
discussions of diversity or his parents as immigrants).
I don't know how to respond to his content free assertions that are
based on racist stereotypes other than to make fun of him.
How would you respond to the eloquent point made that bad
immigrants are the drunk uneducated traitorous freedom hating
Mexicans?
thoreau|10.7.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Here's some context to the comment about Persian dentists:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119547.html#674804
|10.7.07 @ 1:32PM|#
I always hear complaints that Mexican immigrants are 1) drunks
2) don't keep up their yard 3) play loud music.
Lets assume all these things are true.
So, how is this different from the average "all-American" redneck
Scots-Irish in Appalachia, how?
thoreau|10.7.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Chalupa-
What would you do if your daughter got pregnant by a Muslim?
And what if that Muslim was also a Persian dentist?
|10.7.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Cesar, you don't get it. See, the Mexicans just aren't willing
to support our American institutions.
During the Vietnam War, 80,000 Latinos served, incurring about
19 percent of all casualties. At the time, however, Latinos made up
only 4.5 percent of the total population.
Of course they also volunteered in large numbers in the Civil War,
Spanish American war, WWI, WWII, Korea, etc...
a real sad history. They come to our country to get privileges, and
won't chip in to help out when the going gets tough.
|10.7.07 @ 1:48PM|#
What if it was also an illegal Persian Muslim Dentist who lived in Mexico and was infected by their dirty socialist tequila-loving culture?
|10.7.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Neu Mejican-
I'm surprised no ones asked you "How many Mexicans do YOU live next
to?" yet.
That would be funny because IIRC New Mexico is majority
hispanic.
thoreau|10.7.07 @ 1:49PM|#
What if the dentist was half Persian and half Mexican? And what
if his Mexican ancestors were Aztecs from....(drum
roll)...Aztlan!?!?!?!?
Grand Chalupa: The gift that keeps on giving!
|10.7.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Dr. T,
Nice link.
In our culture men wanting women for sex are demonized. Women
wanting emotional connection is seen as the ultimate
good
Like I said, he may be his own best argument against allowing
immigration.
dhex|10.7.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Iih can even even explain to you how the religion that
commands slaughter of Jews, allows the beating of wives and calls
itself the revealed word of God is compatable with liberty and
plurality.
kill a papist for jesus?
har har thanks i'll be here all night try the veal (it screamed for
mommy)...
i know you're no longer reading this thread and all but have you
ever stopped to think about the vicissitudes of christian thought
in the west and how even those most anti-state, anti-social (yeah
saying all your neighbors are going to burn forever because they
don't dance to your cha cha cha is pretty anti-social) and
otherwise disagreeable sects have managed to refrain from really
putting the screws to one another for quite some time?
or would this interfere with the magical universe view of islam
you've got going on, where the words in a book create the sole
cause of all actions?
(trick question)
thoreau|10.7.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Maybe we should ask for a separate "Beat up on Chalupa" thread every weekend.
|10.7.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Nah, I think it would be better to have a separate "Race and Immigration Open Thread" so it acts like fly paper to trap all the crazies (Chalupa, TLB, and of course the souless wind-up monkey).
|10.7.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Cesar,
Well your question is complicated. In New Mexico there is a
distinct split. In Las Cruces, the majority of Hispanics would
identify themselves as of Mexican heritage, and get angry if you
called them Spanish. In the northern part of the state you would
flip that. Since I am from Albuquerque, (in the middle) we get both
groups. My wife is from a Spanish family (Trujillo or Truxillo-
Santa Fe) that settled NM well before the Mexican period, so they
are from Spanish heritage. But only in the way that I am English.
Really, I live next to Americans. But we have the best cuisine of
any state in the US. You mix Pueblo, Spanish and Cowboy food
together, yumm....
Like I have said before, Grande Cabron does not deserve to be
associated with the heavenly food that is a chalupa.
|10.7.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Well, since its a border state you could say "114
million".
Of course you elect such avowed socialist Chavistas such
as Gary Johnson, Bill Richardson, and Pete Domenici! The horror!
THE HORROR! (sarcasm)
|10.7.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Maybe we should ask for a separate "Beat up on Chalupa"
thread every weekend
Count me out! I'm going big game hunting at the zoo. More
challenging.
|10.7.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Don't forget that Bill Richardson was raised in Mexico City. He is the point on the Nation of Aztlán's spear to take over our English way of life.
|10.7.07 @ 2:14PM|#
The Orange County Register (is there any place more Republican
than Orange County) has a nice write up on the Ron Paul campaign
here.
He's making some noise.
Tsk tsk|10.7.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Why don't you all see what your hero Ron Paul was saying about
your innocent and noble niggers in the 80s.
Fucking morons, no wonder this country is going to shit.
Guy Montag|10.7.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Seems the only way he is going to distance himself from that 9/11 'truth' bunch is with rat shot, or maybe rock salt.
Mr. Jackson|10.7.07 @ 2:31PM|#
No, the country's going to shit because Ron Paul was right, the
blacks are savages.
Turn on BET. Look at their magazines and monkey asses they find
attractive.
|10.7.07 @ 2:32PM|#
The vast majority of rap, like all shit music in history, is consumed by white suburban teenagers.
|10.7.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Mr Jackson,
!. Print out your previous post.
2. Roll it up real tight.
3. Bend over.
$. Insert same. (You're probably used to that kind of stuff
anyway.)
Mr. Jackson|10.7.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Yea, keep standing up for them as they give weeds and needles to
your children and rape white woman.
Aryans have become so degenerate. There was a time when
libertarians had more sense.
|10.7.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Mr. Jackson--
You need to be more subtle if you wish to troll. Maybe the great
URKOBOLD can give you a lesson.
|10.7.07 @ 2:47PM|#
What are the chances, with someone like Larry Craig standing for re-election in a state like Idaho, that an LP candidate could make a strong showing if Craig isn't knocked off in a primary?
Mr. Jackson|10.7.07 @ 2:50PM|#
My great grandfather died fighting for the confederacy, son. One day they will ask your generation what did you do for your race? And you'll answer not a damn thing.
|10.7.07 @ 2:51PM|#
HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE oh yeah!
Hi VM!
Hmm...I wonder if those were the same plague that was outside of my
workplace one night this summer. It doesn't sound like they were
necessarily the same species, though.
Us crazy Clevelanders with our wacky plagues! Ha ha!
Annonymous|10.7.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Amazing how you can discuss selling organs and just about anything else here but there's a nigger pile on anybody who brings up race. And you all don't consider yourself pious people!
|10.7.07 @ 2:56PM|#
How'd we get back to the Persians.
Would Chalupa allow an Aryan Dentist to marry Mr. Jackson's
daughter?
|10.7.07 @ 2:59PM|#
there's a nigger pile
A what? Thats the first time in my life I've heard the expression,
"nigger pile".
|10.7.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Pious Libertarians
The Synergy of Libertarianism and Islam
May 6, 2006
M. Zuhdi Jasser
Vital Speeches of the Day, May 2006
Vital Speeches of the Day
AFFAIRS OF RELIGION AND AFFAIRS OF STATE
Address by M. ZUHDI JASSER, Chairman of the American Islamic Forum
for Democracy
Delivered to the Economics Discussion Group of Phoenix, Phoenix,
Arizona, October 19, 2005
When it comes to libertarian ideology and its synergy with Islam,
mine is a minority opinion within the "current" Muslim community.
My prayer is that it is a majority opinion within the Muslim
conscience.
It is my belief as a Muslim that libertarianism is a prerequisite
for piety and for a pure unadulterated relationship with God. Faith
must be personal in order to be "faith". Moreover, what is
faith?-but a belief in that which cannot be proven but does exist
and for which one may be held accountable? Islam as I know it and
practice it is a personal faith without encumbrance external to my
own physical being, to myself. It is unencumbered by clergy, or a
man-made hierarchy.
It is my belief as a Muslim that liberty is necessary for religion
and religion is necessary for liberty.
The independent nature of this relationship is at the core of the
success of both ideologies-a virtual covalent bond.
Discuss.
|10.7.07 @ 3:03PM|#
A society based upon liberty and free markets is predicated
upon the presence of a moral code and the inherent trust of all of
the participants (as Fukayama eloquently writes about in Trust).
Thus, the more individually pious a society is, the more able they
are to practice a libertarian philosophy within the society. The
less pious and thus, the less ethical they are, the more autocracy
they may need.
|10.7.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Its certainly true that religion seems to actually flourish more
when the tie between it and the state is severed.
Compare church attendance in places with state-run churches (The
UK, Canda) versus the United States.
|10.7.07 @ 3:05PM|#
Sorry, lost the link.
The rest is here
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=2253
|10.7.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Well, if the Anglican Church made you attend services under pain of imprisonment I'm sure they'd have high attendance, too.
|10.7.07 @ 3:20PM|#
And you all don't consider yourself pious people!
Oh, I'm pious. And rich. And intelligent. And sucsessful with the
ladies. But faggot white supremacists piss me off. I'll have ti
work on that, I guess.
|10.7.07 @ 3:29PM|#
I don't really have a problem with gays. It's just that people who talk about Aryan (but don't know what the word means) supremacy are usually (83% or so) barely repressed homosexuals in denial, and it really ticks 'em off to be called out on it. Insert Standard Libertarian Disclaimer #7 (What goes on between consenying adults ...) here.
|10.7.07 @ 3:31PM|#
"Well, I wouldn't say it is any more of an article of faith than
your assertions regarding the centrality of English traditions to
our nations success. " The funny thing NM is that of course I was
arguing that the premises were true but that the conclusion was not
warranted, in all of the syllogisms I put forward. So yes, I agree
with you that English traditions are central to our nations success
:). Thanks.
"Sounds just like my local county sheriff.
About as close as the Iroquois quote you decided to pull out."
Well, it does sound like your county sheriff. I bet they both
either serve warrants and/or engage in correctional duties. Many
are still elected in the US. SOme still oversee elections and tax
collection. These vestiges can be evolutionarily traced back to the
English office from which it came. The counting of the wampun beads
to determine number of Lordships is ships (or canoes) passing in
the night...
"Why not point to some evidence that the culture those 26 million
people have brought to our country has created problems"
As I said, how would all that be tangled out to determine whether
we are strong BECAUSE of historical immigration, or DESPITE?
"The main point you are missing is that Hunnington's list of
components of our culture is a mostly meaningless hodge-podge that
he uses to justify his xenophobia." I don't think so, this is a
pretty standard list often used by mainstream scholars when talking
about what makes US culture, or especially its creed, unique.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19960301fareviewessay4193/michael-lind/the-american-creed-does-it-matter-should-it-change.html
Cesar-it may surprise you that I agree with much of what you write
and this conclusion "Its supreme arrogance to think Anglo-Saxons
are the only people in the world who understand free markets and
capitalism, and that all Latin Americans are un-repentant
socialists." I would add that there was nothing genetically special
about Angl-Saxons. Going through what they did when they did,
differences in ideas, being where they were during certain times
and events, etc., had more to do with why they developed the way
they did than anything innate. But evolve it did, giving us
institutions that dominate the US. Whether another culture, which
has been through a different series of development could fee
confmortable in, maintain, and become successful under that British
born nation is the question...
|10.7.07 @ 3:32PM|#
MNG-
If poor Jews from Imperial Russia and Italian Catholics from a
backward place like Sicily can, I don't see why Mexican farmers
can't.
|10.7.07 @ 3:41PM|#
"How much clearer do we need to get."
Much. For example, I can mention an adversarial legal system, a
specific institution we inherited from England. Or the institution
of the sheriff, from the English position of the shire of the reeve
(the shire-reeve). Or the grand jury found in most states and the
federal government. Of the specific right against self
incrimination which evolved from the struggle in England to resist
being forced to swear oaths. So what I want to know is which
institutions did we inherit from the Spanish and Mexican
governments that existed in the New Mexico area?" Still waiting,
where are these clearly identifiable Spanish institutions that are
now part of overall American society ?(and "see Land Grants "is not
gonna cut it).
SIV|10.7.07 @ 3:44PM|#
But we have the best cuisine of any state in the US. You mix
Pueblo, Spanish and Cowboy food together, yumm....
Louisiana wins hands down even if you remove
New Orleans Creole cuisine from the equation.
The food continues to evolve in interesting ways. Vietnamese
immigrants bring a colonial French cooking colliding with the
long-ago locally adapted Country French of the Cajuns.
|10.7.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Cesar-do what? Open a successful deli or jewish mob? A successful saloon or local black hand? Because poor Italians and Jewish immigrants did both, y'know...
|10.7.07 @ 3:45PM|#
MNG,
The funny thing NM is that of course I was arguing that the
premises were true but that the conclusion was not warranted, in
all of the syllogisms I put forward. So yes, I agree with you that
English traditions are central to our nations success :).
Thanks.
I know you realize that the premise is
2. The US adopted many English legal institutions
and the unwarranted conclusion is
therefore the English traditions are the cause of our
success
But I thought I would point it out to those that were not following
closely.
Well, it does sound like your county sheriff.
The relevant quote, of course, does not mention serving warrants or
correctional duties. That would be how the institution of sheriff
is similar to other law enforcement institutions from other
traditions. Your point?
As I said, how would all that be tangled out to determine
whether we are strong BECAUSE of historical immigration, or
DESPITE?
But MNG, you position is that you have concluded that Mexican
immigration would have a negative impact. You base that on ....
what? So far you have vague assertions that boil down to
non-English cultures not having an appreciation for modern American
institutions. But you do nothing but cite 200 year old examples
that are of dubious relevance to a discussion of our current
institutions.
You are, however, willing to discount the important non-English
influences that were part of the world of the founders.
It boils down to you feeling uncomfortable interacting with
outsiders that speak a different language and listen to different
music in ways more personal than reading their literature or
watching the travel channel.
|10.7.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Yeah, and there are plenty of native born Americans who start successful business, and plenty who end up being drug dealers. So?
|10.7.07 @ 3:49PM|#
MNG-
If poor Jews from Imperial Russia and Italian Catholics from a
backward place like Sicily can, I don't see why Mexican farmers
can't.
Cesar, as MNG has previously noted, the hispanics are coming here
whether we like it or not. To most of us it seems obvious that
assimilation problems would be mitigated if they were allowed into
mainstream society. Our immigration polucy (if you can call it a
policy) seems designed to keep the immigrant workers seperate from
the rest of America. I just can't see either logic, self interest
or compassion in that.
One more proposal -
Rather than put up the fence on the border, give me 5% of the
appropriation. I'll stand on the north bank of the Rio Grande, wave
my arms and yell "GO HOME" at the top of my lungs. It will be
cheaper and just as effective.
|10.7.07 @ 3:51PM|#
To stop it you would have to shoot with machine guns everyone who crossed the border and mandate a four-child family for every non-hispanic couple. Both of which are authoritarian and ridiculous.
Guy Montag|10.7.07 @ 3:57PM|#
The Synergy of Libertarianism and Islam
This idea does not survive contact with usury.
|10.7.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Louisiana wins hands down
Poppycock, although they are an easy second.
MNG,
In case you haven't figured it out yet. I haven't put forth my own
meaningless list of institutional examples, because the thrust of
my argument is that the listing of key features you and Hunnington
practicing misses the point entirely.
Institutions in American are dynamic and evolving. They have
evolved in a multicultural context and incorporate the perspective
and creativity of AMERICANS, even if they retain names and details
from English history. The institutions, ideals, and practices in
the US today are as more different from the practices, ideals, and
practices of our founders than they are from most modern nations,
Mexico included.
But now we are retreading ground that you a Cesar covered.
|10.7.07 @ 4:08PM|#
The Americn, not English, basis for America's success.
All men are created equal.
The founders didn't really mean it to include everyone, but that
doesn't matter, we believe it includes everyone now.
It means that anyone, no matter their country of origin or creed,
is equally deserving of the opportunities our country provides. It
means that we don't prejudge them based on our prejudices regarding
their country of origin or creed.
That doesn't change when you come from a country that is close by,
and has historical ties to our nation. It doesn't change when your
country speaks the largest 2nd language spoken in our country.
|10.7.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Oh, I'm pious. And rich. And intelligent. And sucsessful with the
ladies. But faggot white supremacists piss me off. I'll have ti
work on that, I guess.
Isn't it fun to live out your fantasies online?
You know, I've been reading this board for a while and can't
believe the things I've been hearing from you.
Maybe you all are wealthy and diversity isn't happening to you, but
I live in a neigborhood that has recently become majority hispanic.
Girls can't walk the streets anymore without getting lewd gestures
thrown there way. Every morning my girlfriend has to pick up empty
beet bottles off our front lawn.
I've come to the conclusion that the Hispanics are a wiked people
and should be kept far away from us as possible.
I see from this thread that a lot of people agree with me. And
cosidering the verbal beat down you give anybody who differs from
PC orthodoxy I wouldn't be suprised if there are ten people shamed
into silence for every one that speaks out.
And I'm guessing not many of you live around blacks either. In
fact, judging by the fact that certain people like Cesar and New
Mexican have been able to post just about once an hour for the
entire weekend, I'm guessing that even if you did a lot of you
don't even go outside enough to notice.
|10.7.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Maybe you all are wealthy and diversity isn't happening to
you
You'd be wrong.
And I'm guessing not many of you live around blacks
either.
Considering that I live in Richmond, Virginia, which is around 70%
or so black you'd be wrong again. I think I'm immune to your silly
little criticism in that regard.
In fact, judging by the fact that certain people like Cesar and New
Mexican have been able to post just about once an hour for the
entire weekend, I'm guessing that even if you did a lot of you
don't even go outside enough to notice.
Not that this is any of your goddamn business, but I work on the
weekends. I happen to work in front of a computers, which means I
can slack off here when theres not much going on.
Now, kindly piss off.
iih|10.7.07 @ 5:01PM|#
NM et al.:
I am back! Beautiful day here in New England/Southern Quebec. Went
for a beautiful road trip!
Regarding Jasser (NM's post at 3:01): I consider myself one of
those minority Muslims who are libertarian and Muslim. There is
still some self-struggle to do to come to terms with some of the
seemingly hateful Quranic verses (that I believe are
abused by both the OBLites, extremists and their followers as well
as the Muslim haters who want to say "Ha, caught you red
handed".)
My quick answer has always been that verses such as those mentioned
by Chalupa above are (1) mis-translated (Arabic is quite a
sophisticated language), (2) taken out of context, or (3)
interpreted quite superficially. The other big mistake that people
make (intentionally or unintentionally) is to only mention these
verses and dismiss others that say some very good things about Jews
(the "chosen" people at the time by God to rule Jerusalem, etc) and
Christians and, less frequently, peoples of other faiths. For
example, many mention the "jihad" verses but never mention the
verses that say things like "you have your religion, and I have
mine" and "there is no compulsion in religion", and so on.
What I think is missing in the modern Muslim discourse is a new and
modern interpretation of the Quran. Since 1200-1300 AD, there
hasn't been true theologians bold enough to make the same bold (and
now mainstream) interpretations of the text of the Quran.
I do not agree with Jasser on everything by the way.
|10.7.07 @ 5:02PM|#
I've come to the conclusion that the Hispanics are a wiked
people and should be kept far away from us as possible.
I've come to the conclusion that the Hispanics bigots
are a wiked stupid people and should be kept far
away from us as possible stop blaming others for their own
pathetic lives.
|10.7.07 @ 5:04PM|#
And I'm guessing not many of you live around blacks
either
Detroit, MI here. ~87% black.
iih|10.7.07 @ 5:07PM|#
J sub D:
Good luck for Cleveland (which I find to be one of the most boring
cities in North America -- in fact I don't know about the whole of
Ohio frankly), but hey they playing the Yankees! Go Red Sox!
iih|10.7.07 @ 5:14PM|#
iih - Are the leaves changing yet?
Oh yes, it is beautiful in Northern NH, Vermont's Northast Kingdom,
and Quebec. Not much south of central NH.
iih|10.7.07 @ 5:18PM|#
J sub D:
Here is a photo
from September 28. Northern MI should have gotten some fall foliage
already.
|10.7.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Oh, I'm pious. And rich. And intelligent. And sucsessful
with the ladies. But faggot white supremacists piss me off. I'll
have ti work on that, I guess.
Let me clarify that "I'm rich" statement.
If I want to go out to eat, I do.
If I want to go to the bar, I do.
If I want to go to Paris, I read a book about Paris.
Food, shelter, some money to waste, yeah, I consider mysaelf rich.
Wouldn't anyone?
|10.7.07 @ 5:35PM|#
But MNG, you position is that you have concluded that
Mexican immigration would have a negative impact. You base that on
.... what? So far you have vague assertions that boil down to
non-English cultures not having an appreciation for modern American
institutions. But you do nothing but cite 200 year old examples
that are of dubious relevance to a discussion of our current
institutions.
Actually, he could do a pretty good job of it if knew how to argue
his case. Consider the last great wave of immigration from approx.
1890 to 1930. Think about what coincided with that. The 16th &
17th amendments, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the
Harrison Act, Prohibition, American entry into WWI (one of the
"ancient quarrels of Europe" our founders advised us to stay the
hell out of, and until then, we usually did).
In fact, most of the fundamental changes in the relationship
between government and citizen that those who call themselves
libertarians usually cry about occurred then, or shortly
thereafter. And, up to this point, they've been mostly
irreversable.
Given that by 1900, the United States already had the highest
standard of living and the highest literacy rate in the world, what
reason is there to believe continued immigration was necessary to
maintain that position?
It would seem to me that from a libertarian perspective,
immigration would be more reasonably construed as an unmitigated
disaster, rather than a success story.
|10.7.07 @ 5:37PM|#
Northern MI should have gotten some fall foliage
already.
iih. But I'm down south here in Detroit. A week or two more.
|10.7.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Mannix-
The biggest government expansion occurred between 1933 and 1968.
Not an immigrant in site in that period due to the quota system
imposed in the early 20s.
Some of our most conservative Presidents (i.e. Ronald Reagan) have
actually been elected after the ban was lifted in 1965.
Annonymous|10.7.07 @ 6:22PM|#
You know, I was starting to lean libertarian. But you guys have a lot of racists in your mix. I don't think I could ever subscribe to such a philosophy, seeing that it is so attractive to so many racists. You guys who are not like that need to do a better job of policing yourselves.
VM|10.7.07 @ 6:24PM|#
Smacky - probably!
On calm days on the lake, you can get covered with 'em...
GO TRIBE.
|10.7.07 @ 6:26PM|#
able to post just about once an hour
At home sick, so I spent too much time in front of the computer.
Easily bored when bed-ridden.
Probably accounts for my cantankerous attitude on this thread as
well.
I still find MNG's position a fascinated matrix of cognitive
dissonance, but there ya go.
Pig,
So how is the history American institutions in that time period
dissimilar than the general trends in the rest of the world? How
exactly would a hard line isolationism improved the success of the
American nation moving forward through the 20th century?
|10.7.07 @ 6:34PM|#
Annonymous,
You know, I was starting to lean libertarian. But you guys have
a lot of racists in your mix. I don't think I could ever subscribe
to such a philosophy, seeing that it is so attractive to so many
racists. You guys who are not like that need to do a better job of
policing yourselves.
There is much to recommend in the libertarian view of the world. It
is not, by a long shot, a perfect philosophy, but an informed
reading of libertarian thought is an important piece of
understanding the current American political landscape. Read some
Hayek before you decide to abandon your interest. For what it is
worth, there is nothing in the libertarian philosophy that would
support the attitudes of the racist, since racism is a strong form
of collectivism and antithetical to libertarian
individualism.
But hey, I ain't a libertarian by a long stretch, so don't take my
word for it.
dhex|10.7.07 @ 6:35PM|#
with a bit more focus, this could have been a very legendary
thread.
i am saddened to hear people say that hispanics are taking sexual
harassment jobs that american guidos used to be able to rely on;
it's more like they're filling up sexual harassment positions that
american guidos won't do.
|10.7.07 @ 6:50PM|#
J sub D,
seems designed to keep the immigrant workers separate from the
rest of America. I just can't see either logic, self interest or
compassion in that.
This, by the way, is the crux of the issue. What policy will have
the most benefit?
Clearly a policy of exclusion will exacerbate any of the problems
that Hunnington and MNG are worried about.
And, in my view, it requires us to abandon one of those cultural
institutions that have been central to the development of our
nation.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent
lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning
to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send
these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside
the golden door!"
|10.7.07 @ 6:55PM|#
the Hispanics are a wiked people and should
be kept far away
Mispelling, or was it intentional and profound?
\Wike\, n. A temporary mark or boundary, as a bough of a tree set
up in marking out or dividing anything.
It seems like the current situation does make Hispanics a "wiked"
people. Hmmm...
|10.7.07 @ 7:02PM|#
iih,
I was particularly interested in the suggestion that libertarianism
depends upon an objective source for/view of morality (as religions
claim to provide).
|10.7.07 @ 7:03PM|#
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With
silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses
yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming
shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my
lamp beside the golden door.
New Mejican, I'm not a sentimental person by any means (I cheered
Princess Di's death) but those words bring a lump to my throat.
Every damned time. Who else would asks for discards and then
dominate the world with them. Makes you proud, Doesn't it?
iih|10.7.07 @ 7:03PM|#
And, NM, who in the world is Hunnington? You mean Samuel Huntington, right? You've used Hunnington several times. In the beginning I thought it was a typo, but you repeated it. Then MNG did the same, then I thought may be you are talking about someone else!
Groucho Marx|10.7.07 @ 7:31PM|#
How'd be get back to the Persians so quick?
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
|10.7.07 @ 7:31PM|#
iih,
I mean S. Huntington, the author of the article Grande C linked to.
Just sloppiness on my part.
Huntington.
Jesus|10.7.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Who else would asks for discards and then dominate the world with them.
Ooooh, I know! I know!
iih|10.7.07 @ 7:35PM|#
I was particularly interested in the suggestion that
libertarianism depends upon an objective source for/view of
morality (as religions claim to provide).
My (humble) view is that all people are born free and then they, in
the course of their lives, decide to loose that freedom by
succumbing to tangible and intangible things like ruthless rulers,
the tyranny of power (including one's own sense of power and
supremacy over others), money for the sole sake of money (not to be
confused with success, which sometimes entails financial reward,
and the need to live well, which requires the earning of money),
carnal desires, etc. Humans, I believe (and based in big part on my
faith) are freest when their souls are free.
So the intangible sense of freedom (e.g., being free of ideology)
supersedes the tangible sense of freedom (e.g., financial freedom).
The Islamic faith, as Jasser alludes to above, says that all humans
are born free. And since it is a monotheistic faith, then the only
supreme power is that of God, and, hence, none and nothing is
worthy of following except Him. Hence the declaration "There is no
god but God" (the first god [with little "g"] implies not only
"gods", but also such things as money, power, carnal desires, etc).
Hence, also the name of the religion "Islam" -- submission. Many
critical of Islam says that "submission" means blindly submitting
to the will of God. Nothing can be further from the truth, for if a
Muslim blindly follows the literal word of God, than that person
has become a slave of an ideology, as opposed to a
reasoned and spiritual process of
being a Muslim.
The best illustration of some of these ideas is the (fictional)
story of Hayy Ibn
Yaqdhan. It is sold
here. It tells the story of a child born on an isolated island,
living as a free person, the child manages to find God.
My 2 cents, FWIW. Bottom line: no contradiction between
libertarianism and spirituality.
|10.7.07 @ 7:42PM|#
iih,
I'll put it on my reading list.
no contradiction between libertarianism and
spirituality
But what of Jasser's contention that libertarianism requires
spirituality?
Or is that what you mean with "freest when their souls are
free?"
You agree with Jasser on that point? Or are you qualifying it?
Freer if both spiritual and libertarian, but still free if one or
the other.
|10.7.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Jesus | October 7, 2007, 7:33pm | #
Who else would asks for discards and then dominate the world with them.
Ooooh, I know! I know!
That brought a big smile to this cynical atheist's face.
Touché.
iih|10.7.07 @ 7:46PM|#
But what of Jasser's contention that libertarianism requires
spirituality?
Or is that what you mean with "freest when their souls are
free?"
What I am saying is that, in my view, spirituality is important for
freedom. Spirituality not necessarily in the strict religios sense.
For example, if one beomces enslaved to the sexual desires of
his/her body, then that person is no longer free. Sexuality could,
however, be very spiritual. If so, it would not prevent a person
from being free. That kind of thing. But I am not sure how Jasser
really defines spirituality here.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245