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."

Comments

[Adam W.]

Issa's a fucking moron.

[Pedantic Copy-Editor]

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]

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]

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.

[sixstring]

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]

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.

[sixstring]

Clicked the Gibson link. Can I get a show of hands? How many of you are 9/11 "truthers?"

[TLB]

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]

"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.

[Jackson]

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.

[BakedPenguin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Inveterate Internet Masturbate]

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.

[tarran]

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.

[Grand Chalupa]

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/culturalagency1/SamuelHuntingtonTheHispanicC.pdf

[Bhh]

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?

[Lost_In_Translation]

Update:

Eric Dondero still missing, presumed alive yet depressed.

[J sub D]

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...

[Max]

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.

[Warren]

Ron Paul is the new Jesus
WWRPD?

[J sub D]

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]

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.

[Cesar]

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

[Cesar]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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.

[Cesar]

Of course they'd cheer for the Mexican team. The US sucks at soccer, IIRC they're near the bottom of the world.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[J sub D]

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

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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

[Cesar]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[iih]

J sub D:

"popish"? Or "polish"? 🙂

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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?

[J sub D]

iih -

Popish - Roman Catholic.

[Cesar]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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...

[Cesar]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

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.

[Cesar]

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]

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.

[Cesar]

The Dutch and Germans didn't become English. The Germans, Dutch, English and everyone else became American.

[Edward]

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

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

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).

[Cesar]

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.

[J sub D]

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 ...

[Cesar]

There was plenty of anti-immigrant sentiment in the 1800s.

That cartoon cracks me up because apparently American culture is threatened by Lager Beer.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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!

[Cesar]

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]

Duh...

Can any one guess where the first US mosque was? I was surprised.

Forgive me, but it was a long, tough week.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

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 text?book 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.

[J sub D]

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!

[Grand Chalupa]

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]

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.

[J sub D]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[J sub D]

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.

[Cesar]

Hey Chalupa, Arabs have low IQs right? (According to you).

[J sub D]

Is it my ISP or have the server squirrels snuck back into the reason complex? Anyone?

[Cesar]

Heres a funny question for iih and Chalupa since you're both Arabs.

Are you often mistaken for being Latino?

[iih]

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]

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]

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).

[Grand Chalupa]

On average, compared to whites, yes.

Although grouping Arabs as a race or sub-race is problematic. Lebanese look nothing like Saudia Arabians.

[Cesar]

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.

[Grand Chalupa]

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.

[Grand Chalupa]

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]

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.

[Cesar]

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]

immigration (in large numbers) is a modern phenomenon

Tramp! tramp! tramp!
The boys are marching

[iih]

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.

[iih]

Cesar: Good job! 😉

[iih]

Cesar: You should take on underzog sometime.

[J sub D]

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.

[J sub D]

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]

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]

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. 🙂

[M]

He didn't hold a grudge though.

Then he wasn't Puerto Rican either.

*ducks

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Grand Chalupa]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Grand Chalupa]

Neu Mejican,

Got stuff to do now, will check it out later.

[Cesar]

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.

[Cesar]

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".

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Cesar]

Thanks for the article Neu Mejican.

Have you (or Chalupa for that matter) ever read Guns,Germs, and Steel?

[iih]

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]

correction: but he does represent the kind of danger people that sometimes scares the hell out of me.

[Neu Mejican]

Cesar,

I haven't read GG&S, but I did see a few of the PBS shows based on it.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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.

[Cesar]

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]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

Grande C,

You all need to internalize Burke.

You need to internalize Paine.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/

[iih]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[J sub D]

The Church of England was created by order of Parliament, remember.

Angicans, AKA Left Handed Catholics.

[Neu Mejican]

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

[Cesar]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

OF course the murder rate is of concern.
But much of that is driven by the drug blackmarket supplying the US with our contraband.

[Neu Mejican]

Cesar,

And you didn't highlight San Diego which, along with El Paso, is ground zero for illegal immigration.

[Cesar]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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...

[Neu Mejican]

re: Duncan Hunter

Oh yeah, I forgot.
They don't have illegal immigration in San Diego anymore.

=/;^)

[prolefeed]

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.

[Cesar]

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?

[Neu Mejican]

New Topic,

Conservatives (SIV, Prolefeed) are dirty and stupid and should be kept off of H&R threads

=/;^)

I es Keeeedeeen, I es Keeedeeen.

[Grand Chalupa]

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=

[Neu Mejican]

For what it is worth, I thought we were discussing this...

David Brooks bemoans the GOP's retreat from Burkean conservatism.

[Legate Damar]

"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.

[Neu Mejican]

I would like to read iih's response to the argument Grande C posts...

[Neu Mejican]

I think that libertarians should take a leaf from Stalin's book.

Wow.

just....

wow.

[Cesar]

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?

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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.

[rm2muv]

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.

[prolefeed]

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!

[Cesar]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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?

[Neu Mejican]

prolefeed,

I'm a very minimal minarchist, bordering on anarcho-capitalist,

Make that a "Sex Pistols, V for Vendatta" libertarian.

[Cesar]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

iih - interesting stuff. Hayward WI still has the Sons of Norway winter festival - I actually saw highlights of it on NRK, norwegian tv!

[Neu Mejican]

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....

[J sub D]

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]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

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 D?troit, 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]

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?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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]

It is good that Craig refuses to leave the senate now.

[iih]

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").

[Neu Mejican]

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...

[Neu Mejican]

"they diverge"

[J sub D]

...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.

[Cesar]

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.

[J sub D]

Make that transubstantiation. I took typing in HS. It didn't help.

[Herbal]

Ron Paul is on Alex Jones today!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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?

[J sub D]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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

[Cesar]

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.;)

[Cesar]

Whoops, should have been a small-R republicanism.

[J sub D]

I'll make the same challenge I made to Cesar to you Neu Mejican: name these Spanish institutions that were adopted.

Slaughtering the natives?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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...

[Cesar]

Nah J sub D, the Spanish just enslaved them. We saved that for the Africans instead.

[iih]

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".

[iih]

Sorry for the long post.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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

[J sub D]

Lastly is Protestantism.

Which is ______? Do you mean non catholic christians? Baptists? Holy Rollers? Quakers? the Amish? Unitarians? What?

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[iih]

back home... way way "back home" -- as in Egypt.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[BakedPenguin]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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.

[Cesar]

joe-

Isn't it cute when war supporters pretend like they're still in the majority?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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.")

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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....

[Neu Mejican]

"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]

"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?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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).

[Neu Mejican]

"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.

[J sub D]

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

[joe]

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!"

[joe]

Mister Nice Guy,

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination in America, and that has nothing to do with English culture.

[SIV]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[Cesar]

Damnit, close italic tags close!

[joe]

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]

joe,

The "Murtha Plan" was to withdraw to Okinawa while charging innocent Marines with War Crimes for the Haditha incident.

[joe]

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.

[joe]

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.

[joe]

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]

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..."

[Grand Chalupa]

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]

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]

Correction: So how has it been often? Which civilization failed because of massive immigration?

[SIV]

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]

201 comments and we haven't really discussed much weekly politics yet. Seems like we're about to beat last weeks ~390 comments.

[joe]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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).

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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/

[Neu Mejican]

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]

A good NYT article on the weakening political evangelical movement: For a Trusty Voting Bloc, a Faith Shaken.

[iih]

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]

iih,

I wish the political religous fundies where you come from were only influential as ours.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Grand Chalupa]

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]

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.

[iih]

ceased and not seized.

[Neu Mejican]

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?

[iih]

NM:

That was an excellent free-market take on it.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

a taste for identity politics?

That is a gem coming from someone arguing the xenophobic position on the subject of immigration.

[iih]

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!

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

Uhhmmm...

iih, of course, sorry...typed too fast.

[iih]

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.

[iih]

iih, of course, sorry...typed too fast.

Stop... don't even mention it 🙂

[Neu Mejican]

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.

;^)

[Grand Chalupa]

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]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

Yes, but we're talking about illegals from Mexico here. Try harder to follow along.

It seems I withdrew my insult too soon.

[iih]

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! 🙂

[Grand Chalupa]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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.

[iih]

Thanks iih for providing a counter example.

Hey, NM, you are welcome.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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

[Grand Chalupa]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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."

[Bilingual Teacher]

Class pay attention.

Todays English words.

privileges
discussing

Repeat after me...P - R - I -...

[Neu Mejican]

When correcting spelling, you will always make a punctuation error.

[Guy Montag]

C-SPAN is taking calls on the US being a Christian nation.

If any of you folks call in, please use your handles?

[Mr Nice Guy]

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

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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]

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]

"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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

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]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE oh yeah!

CLEVELAND ROCKS!!!

Sigh, tho, the Cubbies ended with a whimper.

Can't
Understand
Baseball
Strategy
???

[Fluffy]

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]

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]

That should be

NM-The institution of the sheriff...

Some of us resist immigration into diverse, albeit interesting threads.

[Guy Montag]

Ron Paul drew 1500 in Nashville?

I welcome the Al Gore/Ron Paul faceoff in November 2009!

[Neu Mejican]

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?

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[J sub D, A Tigers Fan.]

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!!!

[Cesar]

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]

Here's the real question: Would Chalupa go to a Persian dentist?

Or is he too macho for that?

[Cesar]

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.

[loupeznik]

Where can I find a link to Reasons's Pillow Girl?

[Neu Mejican]

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]

Here's some context to the comment about Persian dentists:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119547.html#674804

[Cesar]

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]

Chalupa-

What would you do if your daughter got pregnant by a Muslim?

And what if that Muslim was also a Persian dentist?

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Cesar]

What if it was also an illegal Persian Muslim Dentist who lived in Mexico and was infected by their dirty socialist tequila-loving culture?

[Cesar]

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]

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!

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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]

Maybe we should ask for a separate "Beat up on Chalupa" thread every weekend.

[Cesar]

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).

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Cesar]

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)

[Neu Mejican]

And La Raza in California gave us Ronald Reagan.

[J sub D]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

Don't forget that Bill Richardson was raised in Mexico City. He is the point on the Nation of Aztl?n's spear to take over our English way of life.

[J sub D]

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]

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.

[Cesar]

Ron Paul didn't write that newsletter.

[Cesar]

I do wish that Paul would distance himself from the Lew Rockwell crew, however.

[Guy Montag]

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]

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.

[Cesar]

The vast majority of rap, like all shit music in history, is consumed by white suburban teenagers.

[Guy Montag]

"he" meaning Ron Paul

[J sub D]

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.)

[J sub D]

Damned shift key.

[Guy Montag]

5. Profit!!!

[Mr. Jackson]

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.

[Cesar]

Mr. Jackson--

You need to be more subtle if you wish to troll. Maybe the great URKOBOLD can give you a lesson.

[J sub D]

Hey folks, Let's just ignore the racist butt boy. 'kay?

[Cesar]

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]

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.

[smacky]

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!

[Neu Mejican]

Aryans have become so degenerate.

How'd be get back to the Persians so quick?

[Annonymous]

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!

[Neu Mejican]

How'd we get back to the Persians.

Would Chalupa allow an Aryan Dentist to marry Mr. Jackson's daughter?

[Neu Mejican]

Hey let's all have a pylon race.

[Cesar]

there's a nigger pile

A what? Thats the first time in my life I've heard the expression, "nigger pile".

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

Sorry, lost the link.
The rest is here
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=2253

[Neu Mejican]

Cesar,

Or Iran?

[Cesar]

Well, if the Anglican Church made you attend services under pain of imprisonment I'm sure they'd have high attendance, too.

[J sub D]

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.

[J sub D]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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...

[Cesar]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"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]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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...

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Cesar]

Yeah, and there are plenty of native born Americans who start successful business, and plenty who end up being drug dealers. So?

[J sub D]

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.

[ed]

This is what happens on slow news weekends.

[Cesar]

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]

The Synergy of Libertarianism and Islam

This idea does not survive contact with usury.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[Mike Jones]

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.

[Cesar]

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]

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.

[J sub D]

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.

[J sub D]

And I'm guessing not many of you live around blacks either

Detroit, MI here. ~87% black.

[iih]

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!

[J sub D]

iih - Are the leaves changing yet?

[iih]

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]

J sub D:

Here is a photo from September 28. Northern MI should have gotten some fall foliage already.

[J sub D]

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?

[Pig Mannix]

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.

[J sub D]

Northern MI should have gotten some fall foliage already.

iih. But I'm down south here in Detroit. A week or two more.

[iih]

J sub D: Yeah, I guess it may be a bit early.

[Cesar]

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]

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.

[Mr. Jackson]

Good riddance. We have enough self-hating nigger lovers.

[VM]

Smacky - probably!

On calm days on the lake, you can get covered with 'em...

GO TRIBE.

[Neu Mejican]

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?

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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!"

[Neu Mejican]

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...

[Neu Mejican]

iih,

I was particularly interested in the suggestion that libertarianism depends upon an objective source for/view of morality (as religions claim to provide).

[J sub D]

"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]

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]

How'd be get back to the Persians so quick?

One man's Mede is another man's Persian.

[Neu Mejican]

iih,

I mean S. Huntington, the author of the article Grande C linked to. Just sloppiness on my part.

Huntington.

[Jesus]

Who else would asks for discards and then dominate the world with them.

Ooooh, I know! I know!

[iih]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

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.

[J sub D]

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. Touch

[iih]

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.

[iih]

... Many typos, I know.

[iih]

Hey, J sub D: No offense! 😉

[David E. Gallaher]

From tomorrow's NYT about Afghanistan:
"There has always been a need to balance the obvious greater effectiveness of spray against the potential for losing hearts and minds," Thomas A. Schweich, the assistant secretary of state for international narcotics issues, said in an interview last week in Washington. "The question is whether that's manageable. I think that it is."
And many wonder why the violence is increasing there after all these semi-tranquil years.
The operative word is "manageable."

[David E. Gallahere]

Mr. Jackson | October 7, 2007, 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.

Mr. Jackson,
My great grandfather also fought for the Confederacy, but was too slippery to get killed. (You must be old like me.)
(I could put in a piece here about McCain being dumb enough to get his ass shot down. But I won't. One of my best friends from college days shot down a MIG over North Vietnam. He's living in comfortable, obscure security near La Jolla, CA)
You are totally full of shit, Mr. Jackson, if you think my descendents will wonder about what I did for my race.
My descendents will think "race" is like a 78 RPM wax disc.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Mannix-Cut me some slack, I'm having a tough enough time demonstrating to some folks that Huntington's assertion that the American creed and America's major institutions developed from a specific cultural background. In their opinions it seems Iroqouis and Spanish Catholics had some great role in creating the nation that was the United States (amazingly they did it all from the shadows so to speak since they cannot name any such leaders who played any major part in the formation of our nation and its institutions, nor can they name any specific major governmental or legal institution or office we did not derive from English, Protestant origins..)

We are talking to folks who see no difference between "Western" and "Hispanic" or "Latin American" cultures. What could convince them otherwise? Poll numbers demonstrating sizable differences on political and cultural values? A listing of the current differences in political and legal institutions and offices? Listing of different social conditions in the two places? No, for such people culture does not exist and/or matter, and they believe so without referencing messy things like empirical proof or logically tight arguments. Instead just
1. Proclaim that since we are successful, and since we have had a lot of immigrants, the immigrants have certainly made us successful (see my above post about the fallacy inherent)
2. Call people racists, xenophobes, or my favorite, charge they are uncomfortable getting out more

[dhex]

We are talking to folks who see no difference between "Western" and "Hispanic" or "Latin American" cultures.

i think if we amend this to:

"see no reason for differences in host and immigrant cultures to impact the moral and legal issue of immigration policy."

we might be closer to something useful.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Let's play, shall we? Some major American rights and concepts:
1. Habeas corpus-"Habeas corpus derives from the English common law where the first recorded usage was in 1305, in the reign of King Edward I of England."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States
2. Trial by jury-"trial by jury became a pretty explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John.(not Juan btw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#The_United_States
3. Grand juries-"The first grand jury was held in England in 1166. The grand jury was recognized by King John in the Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury#History
4. protection from self-incrimination-"Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly employed to compel "cooperation.""Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with thirteen demands, of which, the right against self-incrimination (in criminal cases only), was listed at number three. These protections were brought to the American shores by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through its Bill of Rights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-Incrimination
5. Excessive bail-"Finally, the English Bill of Rights (1689) held that "excessive bail ought not to be required."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
6. Adversarial system-"The adversarial system (or adversary system) of law is the system of law, generally adopted in common law countries"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system
7. Common law-"Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in those nations which trace their legal heritage to Britain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
8. Sheriffs-"The first shires were created by the Anglo-Saxons in what is now central and southern England. Shires were controlled by a royal official known as a "shire reeve" or sheriff." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire
9. Consent of the governed-"Following John Locke's notion of a nation of "free and equal" citizens, the Founders of the United States believed that consent of the governed was the only legitimate basis upon which one "free and equal" citizen could exercise legal authority over another" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
10. Due Process-"The concept of "due process" dates all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215 A.D." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#History_prior_to_U.S._Bill_of_Rights

Those darned Englishmen! When it comes to our Founding legal and political institutions, they're everywhere. Spooky, huh? Or just common-sensical that a group of people 99% of which were English Protestants would create a nation built largely on Anglo-Saxon institutions, values, language and practices...

[crimethink]

English? Yes...though I'm really not sure what difference that makes at this time.

Protestant? That's a much harder sell. How come other Protestant nations in Germany and Scandanavia didn't develop similar institutions?

[thoreau]

Eric DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!, wherever he is, may be the best argument against letting Hispanics into this country.

[crimethink]

And, once again, many of your bullet points above refer to practices that arose while England was still a Catholic country.

[crimethink]

Puritans were against compelling self-incrimination? Ever heard of the Salem witch trials? Might want to check the reference of that point in the WP article...

And except for the excessive bail point, all of the other practices you refer to originated in Catholic England.

[Cesar]

Yeah, I never get the admiration for the Puritans. A bunch of intolerant, theocratic disphits. At least in the first generation. John Adams et al were descended from them but rejected a lot of what they stood for.

Jamestown is more "American" than Plymouth, and colonial Philadelphia probably the most "American" of all of them.

[Guy Montag]

Pretty cool that Ron Paul hauld in a bit over half what Fred did.

What about this new poll that Fred is in 2nd place in Iowa now?

[Guy Montag]

Jamestown is more "American" than Plymouth, and colonial Philadelphia probably the most "American" of all of them.

Well, Philly does have that zoning supersticion that kept the Phillies out of the World Series. Seems sort of like that New England "Lottery" story.

[iih]

David E. Gallaher:

Unfortunately, only the little guys will suffer. The forces behind the industry will probably still flourish. There was an recent interesting CNN documentary on the issue (I think it was replayed last night). It's interesting that the NYT article did not mention where the Taliban fits in the picture. They are a major player. The CNN documentary did highlight their influence.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Speaking of Mexico and immigration, I have it on fair authority that our fave target, Mr Donderoooooo is MIA in Mexico. Not a fate anyone deserves.

[Thomas Paine\'s Goiter]

You need to internalize Paine.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/

Back off. That's my territory.

[BakedPenguin]

...Puritans [were] a bunch of intolerant, theocratic disphits.

They were also commies, which makes it all the more amusing that anyone advocating capitalism is linked with them.

[BakedPenguin]

My bad, that was the Pilgrims.

[thoreau]

Tough guy Chalupa can mount a rescue operation for DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

without referencing messy things like empirical proof or logically tight arguments.

Where was your empirical data on this issue?
I must have missed it.

And we've been over you tight logic...

Hemmingway drank, was a great author, it was the booze that made him great.

Replace Hemmingway with America, booze with your bullet list, and follow to the conclusion.

Evidence has not been a part of this discussion. It has been about opinion.

Fwiw, I believe you make a better case than Huntington, but please don't delude yourself into the belief that you have presented any empirical data that predicts a cultural meltdown as Mexican immigration continues. The United States is a large country with a varied society made up of many local cultures. There is not a monoculture to be lost, no matter how hard you push your list. The country will remain diverse and dynamic. There is nothing to fear from the changes to come.

The US would be wise, however, to rethink its current immigration laws to facilitate assimilation of new immigrants, rather than maintaining policies that discourage assimilation. But J sub D has already pointed that out.

You might find this interesting
http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/47/2/163

the authors show that assimilation does not lead to a single homogeneous culture even if, unlike in Axelrod's model, cultural assimilation may take place even between neighboring cells with zero similarity; intrinsic changes decrease rather than increase the number of stable cultural regions; and expansion of a single culture in a previously unoccupied territory does not result in a single culture in the entire territory.

The question will be. Do you think it supports your position or refutes it?

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

We are talking to folks who see no difference between "Western" and "Hispanic" or "Latin American" cultures.

No, you are talking to folks who do not see any danger in those differences. That is a very importantly different position.

Picture an apple. It is red and shiny. MNG says the apple is beautiful because it is red. NM says, but no, it is the way the red plays off the highlights of green and yellow that make it good.

You emphasize a single aspect of a complex whole and want it to stand for the whole...a cultural metonymy of sorts. I am more interested in the complexity of the whole and feel something is lost in the simplification. You feel more complexity degrades the culture. I think it strengthens it. We both see the differences. We interpret them differently.

And I enjoy hanging out with people from different cultures. The great thing in America is that I can do it just by walking down my street. I don't need an expensive vacation, just a trip to coffee shop, or a ride on the bus.

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

One last comment and then I am done.

Tell me. Is it the pieces that matter, where they come from, or how they are arranged that matters the most?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

NM-The only thin we've been arguing, or that I've been arguing, is whether there was a basis for Huntington to assert that oour nations creed and institutions have largely orginated from Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture and institutions (a fancy way of saying "from England" [crimethink-please read further up in the post, fluffy and I discussed your points, and I just can't stop class now and go over everything again for the kid who was in the clinic while we were going over it the 1st time ;)]). I think I've given ample empirical evidence that most of our institutions can be traced back to England (duh since our Founders were all English citizens and duh since WASPs had a stranglehold on positions of power in this nation until about a century and a half after the Founding).

Now, whether that culture is threatened by immigration, past or present, is another argument. Huntington makes empirical arguments that present immigration is different than past immigration and could be incompatible with our institutions and culture, but of course no one challenged his empirical arguments. They just said he was a xenophobe and Pat Buchanan's buddy and then asserted that it's nuts to assert that our culture was largely shaped by WASP institutions and culture. So that's what I've been arguing...

BTW-I don't look at the apple and say its redness is beautiful and you say its the way the light hits of the green and yellow. It's more like I say "it's an apple because it came from that apple tree there" and you say "but bees may have crosspollinated it with some oranges that are over in yonder orchard. So it's really a unique apple/orange we are looking at, and being equally an orange, it has all the vitamin c I need and I'll count on that."

[Mo]

Isn't saying that immigrants will change American culture into something more socialist, but being more WASPy won't idiotic because England is a socialist country. I mean the worst socialized medicine program in the world is in the UK. London has state run cameras all over the place. British conservatives are still fiscally liberal in comparison to Americans. You can't own a handgun in the UK. Etc.

The thing that made the US great isn't the fact that the foundation of our ideals were British, but rather how they evolved into something uniquely American due to the mish mash of cultures here. I think that's NM's point. The foundation was English, but they evolved over time into something unique.

I think it's hilarious that over 350 posts about how the US is a beacon of liberty because of our British heritage without looking at what happened to the Brits. It's obvious something about our culture and society helped maintain a commitment to liberty that is slowly eroding in the UK.

[joe]

You are such a typical liberal joe.
When all else fails(as it always does with Statist socialism) fall back on charges of "RACISM!".

You are a such a typical Republican, "SIV." When you can't hold up your end in an argument, pretend you've been called a racist, and go pout in your tent.

[dhex]

Huntington makes empirical arguments that present immigration is different than past immigration

"empirical" is stretching it just a little bit, don't you think? it's not like he's dissecting mexicans and wasps and then measuring the amount of impact their genes have on a given environment. he's making an argument, not gathering data.

he's making an essentialist argument, to be sure. the reason i think his essentialist argument fails is because it is a more lucid and well-spoken version of arguments against allowing large amounts of catholics into the country, because they would create religious anarchy (aka challenge protestant supremacy). as the religious character of the nation goes, the argument went, so does the nation.

(the book "how the irish became white" is a very good peak at some of the mechanisms behind assimilation, and won't have too many liberal or leftist biases so as to offend some of the readers here.)

i don't really care for essentialist arguments, if only because they very rarely address reality so much as one's perception of what makes xyz good or bad. that huntington pulls out the usual "multiculturalists and deconstructionists" joint is disappointing; the clash of civilizations was far more interesting, even if again it falls back to this kind of essentialist view of culture that sees a lot of the forest but seems to miss the trees.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

When all else fails(as it always does with Statist socialism) fall back on charges of "RACISM!".

I'm the opposite of a statist socialist, but I have to say that I believe that so much opposition to illegal immigrants is influenced by racist attitudes. Even Huckabee pointed that out in one of the debates.

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

Talking apples and oranges:

You say it is an Edward VII Apple because it came from an English Apple tree, while I say it looks more like an American Summer Pearmain that has taken advantage of the unique American climate and soil.

Unlike men, not all apples are created equal.

MO- that is a fair summary of my point. MNG sees the roots of our institutions in England, but seems unwilling to admit that they are uniquely American institutions as a result of the particular circumstances and history of their implementation in America. The differences don't matter, only the similarities.

The strange part of this is that he attributes the particular vicissitudes of English history the role of primary shaper of these institutions. It is like they developed organically in England and then were transplanted here fully formed and stopped developing. Not chance of them being a uniquely American hybrid. He may be fooled by the English names for these institutions. If law enforcement officers in the Southwest had retained some title like "Secretario Actuario," or "visitador" would he still use the sheriff example? Does the overlap between these institutions from different cultures matter, or only the differences?

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

most of our institutions can be traced back to England

Do you really think your list includes "most" of our institutions? Really? Is our culture made up entirely of legal structures? Even if we stick to legal structures, do you feel like your list of 10 items constitutes "most" of the legal structures in our society.

Maybe you should browse around here...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

Your greatest hits list is far from a description of the modern federal code.

Or if we go to structures of government, how many of the federal departments have roots in the English system?

Most of the institutions? Really?

[Frontier Government]

visitador: yes, I am the law enforcement officer.
New American Boss: so you're the sheriff around here, good, here's the new procedures.
visitador: Sheriff?
New American Boss: yeah, the guy who enforces the law? That's you?
visitador: yes, I am the visitador. In English that is "Sheriff?"
New American Boss: Yeah, "sheriff."
visitador: "Sheriff," got it. Now let me see those procedures.

[reads]

So I don't [x] any more, but now I have to [y]. Shit, that's a pain in the ass. Oh well boss. I'll get to work on this. People ain't gonna like some of these new rules, but we'll bring 'em round.

[crimethink]

crimethink-please read further up in the post, fluffy and I discussed your points, and I just can't stop class now and go over everything again for the kid who was in the clinic while we were going over it the 1st time 😉

You did no such thing. You merely swept my criticisms under the rug, because you "don't know" whether there were liberty movements in other Protestant areas like Prussia and Scandinavia. I'm not an expert in the history of those countries, but nothing like the US and UK institutions grew out of those places.

If I were to argue that our institutions are inherently insular (ie, arising from being located on an island), I'd have as much evidence for that thesis as you have for claiming that English institutions were inherently Protestant. After all, England was on an island when it developed all those institutions (which is more than one can say for its Protestantism).

[Federal Institutions]

Are these agencies of the US government

http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha

English institutions?