Political Roundtable - Part VII

[TGW]

Well if that's your stance Nate, why do many of your cohorts fight so hard to make the Middle East a democracy despite your assertion that these people are incapable of living in a democratic state? Sounds hypocritical if you ask me.

I've consistently opposed "my cohorts" in the Middle East. I was against the original invasion of Iraq in 2003 and have been opposed ever since. At this point, I think both parties are being used by Israel and Saudi Arabia to keep the Middle East destabilized so that no one faction can consolidate power and challenge either one of them. Both the Republicans and Democrats are complicit because both parties are heavily financed by the Israel lobby, the defense lobby, and Big Oil.

Fair enough Nate...I shouldn't have made the assumption that you were one of those folks.

However, with this knowledge, can you at least admit that these great "Western Civilizations" that you like to prop up are complicit in destabilizing the rest of the world?

I mean there's a reason why Africans fight other Africans, and despite your notion that they are "savages", they weren't killing each other before those other people showed up.

[Severn Hoos]

I think the first pre-req is a strong tradition of respect for the rule of law.
Then you would like to have laws that are actually representative of most of the people.
Lots of places have had cultures or legal systems that have never been able to keep corruption in
check. Creates disrespect and resentments.

I read an article shortly after Saddam was overthrown in '03 and the author said "Democracy is the last thing Iraq needs." And he went on to say that he wasn't against Democracy, but he meant that Democracy only works after other foundational principles take root, starting with respect for the rule of law. After those principles are in place, then Democracy can succeed. And I have to agree - I would rather live in a country where the rule of law is respected but I don't have a vote (like a monarchy) than in a nominal democracy where I can vote for a leader (even though in many cases, that vote is for show only) but live in fear that the rule of law will be violated at any time.

Respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness* is far more important than a nominal quadrennial vote that makes me feel good but has no significant impact on the future direction of my existence.


* Interesting to note that the original wording from which Jefferson pulled this phrase referred to "life, liberty, and property". There are some beneficial results from that edit, but also some disappointing ones, IMO. But then that's a thought for another post.

[nate33]

However, with this knowledge, can you at least admit that these great "Western Civilizations" that you like to prop up are complicit in destabilizing the rest of the world?

I mean there's a reason why Africans fight other Africans, and despite your notion that they are "savages", they weren't killing each other before those other people showed up.

Yes, Western Civilization is indeed complicit in destabilizing the rest of the world. Part of it is because they foolishly believe they can remake the world in their image rather than just letting people be. Another big part is the "Israel Problem". Out of sympathy and guilt for what happened to the Jews under Hitler, they made things worse by establishing Israel. I think, in general, the dominant society in the world always meddles in the affairs of others. It's not particularly unique to Western civilization. The problem is magnified now with technology easily facilitating a worldwide presence.

I question your statement on whether Africans were killing each other before Europeans showed up. Certainly, based on population growth, Africa has become very much more hospitable to human life after the arrival of Europeans.

[TGW]

However, with this knowledge, can you at least admit that these great "Western Civilizations" that you like to prop up are complicit in destabilizing the rest of the world?

I mean there's a reason why Africans fight other Africans, and despite your notion that they are "savages", they weren't killing each other before those other people showed up.

Yes, Western Civilization is indeed complicit in destabilizing the rest of the world. Part of it is because they foolishly believe they can remake the world in their image rather than just letting people be. Another big part is the "Israel Problem". Out of sympathy and guilt for what happened to the Jews under Hitler, they made things worse by establishing Israel. I think, in general, the dominant society in the world always meddles in the affairs of others. It's not particularly unique to Western civilization. The problem is magnified now with technology easily facilitating a worldwide presence.

I question your statement on whether or not Africans were killing each other before Europeans showed up. Certainly, based on population growth, Africa has become very much more hospitable to human life after the arrival of Europeans.

Well, I have to say I'm surprised by your stance. Glad to see you admitted in those things...I absolutely agree. Now whether Africa is more "hospitable to human life" is very much up for debate. Europeans introduced many different diseases to the African people, and African tribes, for the most part, lived among each other in areas designated by Africans. Once the European conquerors started dividing land and separating groups, the wars started.

[nate33]

However, with this knowledge, can you at least admit that these great "Western Civilizations" that you like to prop up are complicit in destabilizing the rest of the world?

I mean there's a reason why Africans fight other Africans, and despite your notion that they are "savages", they weren't killing each other before those other people showed up.

Yes, Western Civilization is indeed complicit in destabilizing the rest of the world. Part of it is because they foolishly believe they can remake the world in their image rather than just letting people be. Another big part is the "Israel Problem". Out of sympathy and guilt for what happened to the Jews under Hitler, they made things worse by establishing Israel. I think, in general, the dominant society in the world always meddles in the affairs of others. It's not particularly unique to Western civilization. The problem is magnified now with technology easily facilitating a worldwide presence.

I question your statement on whether or not Africans were killing each other before Europeans showed up. Certainly, based on population growth, Africa has become very much more hospitable to human life after the arrival of Europeans.

Well, I have to say I'm surprised by your stance. Glad to see you admitted in those things...I absolutely agree. Now whether Africa is more "hospitable to human life" is very much up for debate. Europeans introduced many different diseases to the African people, and African tribes, for the most part, lived among each other in areas designated by Africans. Once the European conquerors started dividing land and separating groups, the wars started.

FWIW, I don't have any idea how violent Africa was prior to contact with Europeans. I don't think anyone knows for sure. I believe most anthropologists who studied reclusive tribes who were not exposed to Western influence found them to typically be in a state of near constant war with neighboring tribes. It's a function of the tropical environment. With food plentiful, the biggest threat to survival wasn't hunger, but competition with neighboring tribes for territory.

The only objective data I have is that the population growth of Africa after absorbing some of Europe's influence. Something was keeping Africa's population low prior to the arrival of Europeans. Africans certainly learned a great deal about agriculture and medicine to boost their standard of living.

[TheSecretWeapon]

I question your statement on whether Africans were killing each other before Europeans showed up. Certainly, based on population growth, Africa has become very much more hospitable to human life after the arrival of Europeans.

Half credit on this. Population growth in Africa rose significantly once Europe and America abolished slavery. Until then, African population remained fairly flat with Europeans present.

[DCZards]

“When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.”

―Jomo Kenyatta, former president of Kenya

[crackhed]

And Jomo Kenyatta was putting it nicely. I wouldn't call anyone I haven't met - and isn't self acknowledged - a white supremacist, but their arguments are easy to recognize.

[Kanyewest]

They developed a democracy the same way Germany did, under a long American occupation. However, this model has not worked for us since. I think the key is, again, the breakdown or lessening of religious influence and strong univeral education. However, those both are keys to Communist development too so it's far from a sure thing, just helps create a potential for working democracy. India's main issue is the lack of universal education (and again, the religious tension that keeps tearing their cities apart); but I tend to think that universal education is also a weakener for religion though a Madrassa type system where the religion controls the content of the schools may be the exception.

My bad. You are right. I meant to say that Japan developed an surprisingly strong economy without European influence, but it is true that their shift toward democracy was aided by American occupation. Likewise, India's quasi-democracy was guided a great deal by the English occupation.

True, India did inherit some Western ideas and some parts of India became united that otherwise would not have been. Still, I would say India also got a bit of a raw deal by English occupation. A significant portion of wealth that India had was transferred to the British. India also became engaged more with drug trafficking of opium as a result of British Rule, and the British mercenaries took the larger share of the profits; while drug trafficking was profitable at the time, it wasn't really good for India's long term growth. The British also weren't in favor of India industralizing- they wanted India to continue exporting raw materials such as cotton- whereupon the Britain/its factories would export these goods back to India, which would make England come out ahead in the trade balance sheets.

Then of course you have Britain also drawing the line between India and Pakistan. The partitioning of these countries meant that millions of people moved between borders, resulting in a couple hundred thousand deaths- and quite a few more from the wars that have occurred between those two countries.

[nate33]

They developed a democracy the same way Germany did, under a long American occupation. However, this model has not worked for us since. I think the key is, again, the breakdown or lessening of religious influence and strong univeral education. However, those both are keys to Communist development too so it's far from a sure thing, just helps create a potential for working democracy. India's main issue is the lack of universal education (and again, the religious tension that keeps tearing their cities apart); but I tend to think that universal education is also a weakener for religion though a Madrassa type system where the religion controls the content of the schools may be the exception.

My bad. You are right. I meant to say that Japan developed an surprisingly strong economy without European influence, but it is true that their shift toward democracy was aided by American occupation. Likewise, India's quasi-democracy was guided a great deal by the English occupation.

True, India did inherit some Western ideas and some parts of India became united that otherwise would not have been. Still, I would say India also got a bit of a raw deal by English occupation. A significant portion of wealth that India had was transferred to the British. India also became engaged more with drug trafficking of opium as a result of British Rule, and the British mercenaries took the larger share of the profits; while drug trafficking was profitable at the time, it wasn't really good for India's long term growth. The British also weren't in favor of India industralizing- they wanted India to continue exporting raw materials such as cotton- whereupon the Britain/its factories would export these goods back to India, which would make England come out ahead in the trade balance sheets.

Then of course you have Britain also drawing the line between India and Pakistan. The partitioning of these countries meant that millions of people moved between borders, resulting in a couple hundred thousand deaths- and quite a few more from the wars that have occurred between those two countries.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the British occupation didn't have considerable downside. Interestingly, perhaps the most significant feature of their occupation was in forcing English as the national language. Fluency in English has given the Indians a huge advantage over their Asian brethren in the international economy.

[dobrojim]

so I have this FB friend who I was housemates with in college. Guy seemed pretty normal at the
time. It's become increasingly apparent that he has become batcrap crazy with one of his hot buttons
being muslims. His most recent post was a call to ban "teaching islam" (I'm not even sure what that
means) in the US and asking to share if you agree. I'm not sure how one becomes this way unless you've
spent most of your life in a bubble where you have never gotten to know a muslim AND you have
been thoroughly brainwashed by hate groups who seem unable to grasp the concept that muslims
are a diverse group.

I'm sorely tempted to post this in a reply to his post

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYELqbZAQ4M[/youtube]

[dobrojim]

John Boehner Will Resign From Congress

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/john-boehner-to-resign-from-congress.html

edit to add

some may find this more humorous than others

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/boehner-resignation-leaves-massive-leadership-vacu-51389

[pineappleheadindc]

I feel bad for John Boehner. He had an impossible job. The country is so divided nowadays. It's like he was the human analog for being stuck between both sides while still trying to legislate.

In watching his affect during the Pope's speech yesterday, it appears that he found some peace with a future that didn't include a speakership during the speech. Given his frequent tears (and his 20-year quest to get a Pope to address Congress), it appears that he's a devout Catholic - though I'm just guessing at this. I hope Boehner finds happiness and peace in his future endeavors. And if he doesn't need the money and is a devout Catholic, given his reaction to the Pope yesterday, perhaps he ought to consider his next steps to include a job that's associated with his faith.

[dobrojim]

man looked like he had the weight of the world lifted off his shoulders. Congress is effed as long as we
have a size-able enough minority within the majority party that has no interest in or understanding of
actual governing in situation where they can't just have their way. And as long as The Speaker finds it
necessary to kowtow to them, the country is screwed as far as being able to get anything done. Bizarre.

I saw on the news last night that McCarthy, Boehner's likely successor, has authored/passed a grand total of
2, count em, pieces of legislation since entering congress. Each one was a bill to simply rename
a federal bdg. Wow. And he is now going to be running the asylum. This is all made possible by
gerrymandering.

[bsilver]

man looked like he had the weight of the world lifted off his shoulders. Congress is effed as long as we
have a size-able enough minority within the majority party that has no interest in or understanding of
actual governing in situation where they can't just have their way. And as long as The Speaker finds it
necessary to kowtow to them, the country is screwed as far as being able to get anything done. Bizarre.

I saw on the news last night that McCarthy, Boehner's likely successor, has authored/passed a grand total of
2, count em, pieces of legislation since entering congress. Each one was a bill to simply rename
a federal bdg. Wow. And he is now going to be running the asylum. This is all made possible by
gerrymandering.

It's hard to imagine that anyone thinks gerrymandering is beneficial for the US. This is one result:
In 2012, Republicans won 53% of the vote, but 72% of the House seats in states where they drew the lines; Democrats won 56% of the vote but 71% of the seats where they controlled the process.
Another result is that more extreme candidates get elected since their party doesn't have to be concerned about losing the election.

Since Republicans control many more states, they benefited greatly. It's estimated that for Democrats to win the House, they would actually need to win the overall House congressional vote by more than 4%. In 2012 Democrats won the total House vote by more than 1%, but Republicans easily maintained a House majority.

There is a possibility that the presidential race could manipulated by gerrymandering. Currently, only 2 states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate electoral votes by congressional district. This could change if either party gets desperate enough to try to win by changing the rules. eg, when Pennsylvania had a Republican governor they could have changed the election laws to allocate electoral votes by district. Obama won PA by 4.4% in 2012 winning 18 electoral votes, but would have lost 13 to 5 if the law was changed. This probably won't happen, but why have a system where this could legally be done.

While I'm complaining, the electoral college system sucks. How can this be considered democratic. Votes in battleground states are vastly more important than in strictly "red" or "blue" states. No wonder people think their vote doesn't matter. Deciding the presidency by popular vote seems to make the most sense.

[dobrojim]

The electoral college could be fixed without constitutional amendment if (enough) individual states each passed
a law saying their state would designate that the winner of the popular vote nationally would receive all their
electoral college votes.

But I agree, the electoral college is now an anachronism that needs to be legislated into the dustbin
of history, especially before clever and power hungry legislatures start playing shenanigans with
the presidential election in a way that might result in a minority vote getter winning the election.

[Induveca]

The electoral college could be fixed without constitutional amendment if (enough) individual states each passed
a law saying their state would designate that the winner of the popular vote nationally would receive all their
electoral college votes.

But I agree, the electoral college is now an anachronism that needs to be legislated into the dustbin
of history, especially before clever and power hungry legislatures start playing shenanigans with
the presidential election in a way that might result in a minority vote getter winning the election.

Won't happen, the smaller states already feel marginalized as it is.......anti-urban etc. The top 25 TV markets determining the president would be democratic 100% of the time.

To me, the electoral college makes sense in this regard. It ensures (theoretically) that the values of the entire country are heard. Not just dense urban areas, which tend to be more liberal.

[bsilver]

The electoral college could be fixed without constitutional amendment if (enough) individual states each passed
a law saying their state would designate that the winner of the popular vote nationally would receive all their
electoral college votes.

But I agree, the electoral college is now an anachronism that needs to be legislated into the dustbin
of history, especially before clever and power hungry legislatures start playing shenanigans with
the presidential election in a way that might result in a minority vote getter winning the election.

Won't happen, the smaller states already feel marginalized as it is.......anti-urban etc. The top 25 TV markets determining the president would be democratic 100% of the time.

To me, the electoral college makes sense in this regard. It ensures (theoretically) that the values of the entire country are heard. Not just dense urban areas, which tend to be more liberal.

Don't see why top TV markets would determine the election any more than they do now. I think the effect would be a wash. Media in the US is national, Fox, CNN, NBC, etc. Voters' new sources won't change. More advertising money would be spent in big markets, but Republicans will spend as much or more than Democrats.

[nate33]

The electoral college could be fixed without constitutional amendment if (enough) individual states each passed
a law saying their state would designate that the winner of the popular vote nationally would receive all their
electoral college votes.

But I agree, the electoral college is now an anachronism that needs to be legislated into the dustbin
of history, especially before clever and power hungry legislatures start playing shenanigans with
the presidential election in a way that might result in a minority vote getter winning the election.

My solution is to break the United States up into 5 or 6 regional countries (or a lot more would be fine with me). It makes no sense for the people of Idaho to be governed by the people of the East Coast. They're an entirely different people with different economic and cultural interests and a different economy.

When the nation was founded, there was one congressman for every 35,000 citizens. It was conceivably possible for that representative to know at least one member of each family, or at least everyone knew someone who knew their congressman. Now, there is one congressman for every 750,000 citizens.

[Wizardspride]

Yep. Zimmerman has no racist tendencies. No evidence of that at all.....

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/27/george-zimmerman-disgustingly-retweets-picture-of-trayvon-martins-dead-body-image/

George Zimmerman Disgustingly Retweets Picture Of Trayvon Martin’s Dead Body (IMAGE)


George Zimmerman just did the unthinkable.

In what is probably the most inhumane, despicable act you can think of after killing someone, Zimmerman retweeted a picture of Trayvon Martin’s lifeless body on Twitter Friday.


Since his release Zimmerman has taken to social media and used a number of racial slurs. To this day, he regularly refers to African-Americans as “apes” and proudly displays the Confederate flag as his profile image on Twitter.

While he has hasn’t exactly painted himself in the best light up to this point, this certainly is a new low.