Political Roundtable Part IX

[nate33]

This "deeply flawed and inequitable nation" is the number one destination for all of those minorities whom you seem to think get discriminated against so severely. The success of any minority group, including Africans, is much higher within the wickedly racist America than in their native homeland, so spare the preaching about racism. You want to see deeply flawed inequality? Go to any nation in Africa, Latin America or the Middle East (excluding Israel).

Oh, that's right. You don't believe that this nation's past (or present) racism has had any short- or long-term negative impact on its victims. My bad. I forgot who I was debating. You'd much rather point to the shortcomings/flaws of other countries than to hold the country that we actually live in accountable for its shortcoming/flaws.

Must be nice in those rose-colored glasses.

And you don't believe that the failure of blacks to achieve equity in America might possibly have something to do with blacks themselves. You see black underperformance, and automatically attribute it to racist Whitey even though the fact that blacks seem to do better in America than anywhere else completely destroys your premise.

[dckingsfan]

I thought this portion of the thread was about those that wanted to immigrate to the US. And if they want to immigrate to the US they need to accept our Common Law. Do we all agree that this is rational and right?

[nate33]

The backbone of the U.S.' economic success is that we embraced persecuted minorities. We are the beneficiary of centuries of racism and intolerance in Europe that lead to some of Europe's best and brightest fleeing their homelands to seek opportunity in the New World.

Make no mistake - we are powerful PRECISELY because of our diversity. We are successful EXACTLY TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE DIFFERENT from Europe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-witte/nobel-laureates_b_2458128.html

I like that link. It says that 32% of American Nobel Laureates are foreign born. Except that nearly all of those foreign born Laureates are Europeans, (or Ashkenazi Jewish, who share European cultural heritage themselves). It bolsters my point that those of European cultural heritage are best suited for American culture.

That doesn't mean that some members of other cultures can't be admitted, but the number should be small so that they can be assimilated without dramatically disrupting the culture. And it's perfectly fine to notice which cultures seem to integrate better and bias our immigration policies accordingly. Certainly upper caste Indians, Koreans, Jews, and Filipinos seem to integrate well.

Sorry, you can't claim Ashkenazi Jews' "Europeanism" as proof of your twisted worldview. `Europe has made clear to the Jews for centuries just "European" they are not. Nothing about Jewish success or exceptionalism is European. It's Jewish.

I dunno. Why is it that Ashkenazi Jews are so much more successful than Sephardic Jews? I think European culture played at least some role.

But I'm not going to fundamentally disagree with your point. Certainly, even Askenazi Jews have a cultural heritage that is primarily "Jewish", rather than "European". I'm a big admirer of the Jewish people. I'm perfectly willing to cede the point that the Jewish culture is in many ways as successful and possibly more successful than Western European culture. Though I wonder how successful the Jewish people would be without the intercession of modern Western Europe to support Israel.

[dckingsfan]

Killer Aps for an economy:
https://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity?language=en

[fishercob]

I like that link. It says that 32% of American Nobel Laureates are foreign born. Except that nearly all of those foreign born Laureates are Europeans, (or Ashkenazi Jewish, who share European cultural heritage themselves). It bolsters my point that those of European cultural heritage are best suited for American culture.

That doesn't mean that some members of other cultures can't be admitted, but the number should be small so that they can be assimilated without dramatically disrupting the culture. And it's perfectly fine to notice which cultures seem to integrate better and bias our immigration policies accordingly. Certainly upper caste Indians, Koreans, Jews, and Filipinos seem to integrate well.

Sorry, you can't claim Ashkenazi Jews' "Europeanism" as proof of your twisted worldview. `Europe has made clear to the Jews for centuries just "European" they are not. Nothing about Jewish success or exceptionalism is European. It's Jewish.

I dunno. Why is it that Ashkenazi Jews are so much more successful than Sephardic Jews? I think European culture played at least some role.

But I'm not going to fundamentally disagree with your point. Certainly, even Askenazi Jews have a cultural heritage that is primarily "Jewish", rather than "European". I'm a big admirer of the Jewish people. I'm perfectly willing to cede the point that the Jewish culture is in many ways as successful and possibly more successful than Western European culture. Though I wonder how successful the Jewish people would be without the intercession of modern Western Europe to support Israel.

What does this mean?

[DCZards]

This "deeply flawed and inequitable nation" is the number one destination for all of those minorities whom you seem to think get discriminated against so severely. The success of any minority group, including Africans, is much higher within the wickedly racist America than in their native homeland, so spare the preaching about racism. You want to see deeply flawed inequality? Go to any nation in Africa, Latin America or the Middle East (excluding Israel).

Oh, that's right. You don't believe that this nation's past (or present) racism has had any short- or long-term negative impact on its victims. My bad. I forgot who I was debating. You'd much rather point to the shortcomings/flaws of other countries than to hold the country that we actually live in accountable for its shortcoming/flaws.

Must be nice in those rose-colored glasses.

And you don't believe that the failure of blacks to achieve equity in America might possibly have something to do with blacks themselves. You see black underperformance, and automatically attribute it to racist Whitey even though the fact that blacks seem to do better in America than anywhere else completely destroys your premise.

I never said that black folks should not receive some of the blame for their underperformance. I have no problem holding my people accountable. But I'd like for you to admit just once (if that's possible) that slavery and racism--and their aftermath--have severely hurt black progress in this country. It's awfully hard to win a 100 dash when the person you're competing against has been given a 20 yard head start. Not that it can't be done, but it does make winning the race more difficult.

And, you're right, many blacks have done quite well economically, socially, politically, etc. here in America. Makes me proud to be able to say that. Thankfully, our ancestors implored us to be "twice as good," because that's what it often took for us to be successful in America.

[nate33]

Sorry, you can't claim Ashkenazi Jews' "Europeanism" as proof of your twisted worldview. `Europe has made clear to the Jews for centuries just "European" they are not. Nothing about Jewish success or exceptionalism is European. It's Jewish.

I dunno. Why is it that Ashkenazi Jews are so much more successful than Sephardic Jews? I think European culture played at least some role.

But I'm not going to fundamentally disagree with your point. Certainly, even Askenazi Jews have a cultural heritage that is primarily "Jewish", rather than "European". I'm a big admirer of the Jewish people. I'm perfectly willing to cede the point that the Jewish culture is in many ways as successful and possibly more successful than Western European culture. Though I wonder how successful the Jewish people would be without the intercession of modern Western Europe to support Israel.

What does this mean?

There is no attempt at dual meaning or hidden subtext.

It means that the country of Israel wouldn't exist without the protection of Britain and America for it's first 40 or so years of existence. The existence of the country of Israel has served as a reasonably safe homeland for the Jewish people to grow and thrive. When I said that the Jewish culture was "in many ways" as successful as Western European culture, I included that caveat for a reason. It's hard to rank a culture as categorically "successful" if they were unable to obtain and sustain a territorial region without assistance.

[fishercob]

I dunno. Why is it that Ashkenazi Jews are so much more successful than Sephardic Jews? I think European culture played at least some role.

But I'm not going to fundamentally disagree with your point. Certainly, even Askenazi Jews have a cultural heritage that is primarily "Jewish", rather than "European". I'm a big admirer of the Jewish people. I'm perfectly willing to cede the point that the Jewish culture is in many ways as successful and possibly more successful than Western European culture. Though I wonder how successful the Jewish people would be without the intercession of modern Western Europe to support Israel.

What does this mean?

There is no attempt at dual meaning or hidden subtext.

It means that the country of Israel wouldn't exist without the protection of Britain and America for it's first 40 or so years of existence. The existence of the country of Israel has served as a reasonably safe homeland for the Jewish people to grow and thrive. When I said that the Jewish culture was "in many ways" as successful as Western European culture, I included that caveat for a reason. It's hard to rank a culture as categorically "successful" if they were unable to obtain and sustain a territorial region without assistance.

What does the success of American Jewry have to do with Israel?

Also, the country of France -- or Great Britain -- wouldn't exist without the intervention of the US in WWII. Lots of countries benefit from being allies with military superpowers. I don't get how this fits into this discussion.

[nate33]

Oh, that's right. You don't believe that this nation's past (or present) racism has had any short- or long-term negative impact on its victims. My bad. I forgot who I was debating. You'd much rather point to the shortcomings/flaws of other countries than to hold the country that we actually live in accountable for its shortcoming/flaws.

Must be nice in those rose-colored glasses.

And you don't believe that the failure of blacks to achieve equity in America might possibly have something to do with blacks themselves. You see black underperformance, and automatically attribute it to racist Whitey even though the fact that blacks seem to do better in America than anywhere else completely destroys your premise.

I never said that black folks should not receive some of the blame for their underperformance. I have no problem holding my people accountable. But I'd like for you to admit just once (if that's possible) that slavery and racism--and their aftermath--have severely hurt black progress in this country. It's awfully hard to win a 100 dash when the person you're competing against has been given a 20 yard head start. Not that it can't be done, but it does make winning the race more difficult.

And, you're right, many blacks have done quite well economically, socially, politically, etc. here in America. Makes me proud to be able to say that. Thankfully, our ancestors implored us to be "twice as good," because that's what it often took for us to be successful in America.

There is no question that slavery and then Jim Crow harmed blacks at that time - and probably for a generation or two afterwards. But at some point one can't continue to use the same excuse when other cultures have come here more recently, without the benefit of affirmative action, and lacking the English language or a high number of kinfolk in the region, have nevertheless been much more successful than blacks.

It seems to me that one must first prove that blacks do well in the absence of a slavery history before one can rationally assert that the cause of black underperformance in America is due to slavery. How are the Eritreans doing in Switzerland? How are the Somalians doing in Sweden? How are the Congolese performing in Australia? They're performing poorly by any metric. Those countries don't have slavery and those immigrants didn't experience slavery.

I'll believe that slavery from 7 generations ago is a cause for black underperformance in America today as soon as I see an example of blacks performing equitably in any other country.

And I'll take this opportunity to reiterate what I've said in the past. America has a duty to find a way to get blacks to be successful here. America brought them here against their will and have a duty to make it right. If programs like Head Start and Affirmative Action prove to be successful, then we should continue to pursue them. All I'm saying is that we need to try and diagnose the problem accurately. This blaming of slavery from 7 generations ago could conceivably be accurate, but it might not. I'd like to see some evidence that shows it's accurate before we proceed based on a faulty premise.

[nate33]

What does this mean?

There is no attempt at dual meaning or hidden subtext.

It means that the country of Israel wouldn't exist without the protection of Britain and America for it's first 40 or so years of existence. The existence of the country of Israel has served as a reasonably safe homeland for the Jewish people to grow and thrive. When I said that the Jewish culture was "in many ways" as successful as Western European culture, I included that caveat for a reason. It's hard to rank a culture as categorically "successful" if they were unable to obtain and sustain a territorial region without assistance.

What does the success of American Jewry have to do with Israel?

Who said that this discussion is confined to American Jews? I was pointing out that the fact that Zonker's list of Nobel Laureates in no way proves that America should open it's borders to anyone who wants to come here. It shows that America's long history of admitting mostly just Europeans (including European Jews) was wise.

We got sidetracked when you jumped in on my point regarding the success of European Jews. You appear to passionately believe that the success of European Jews is due solely to the "Jew" part and not the "European" part. I tried to diplomatically agree with the basic premise of your point with only a few minor caveats and you continue to nitpick. I don't know what else there is to say on the matter.

[crackhed]

And you don't believe that the failure of blacks to achieve equity in America might possibly have something to do with blacks themselves. You see black underperformance, and automatically attribute it to racist Whitey even though the fact that blacks seem to do better in America than anywhere else completely destroys your premise.

I never said that black folks should not receive some of the blame for their underperformance. I have no problem holding my people accountable. But I'd like for you to admit just once (if that's possible) that slavery and racism--and their aftermath--have severely hurt black progress in this country. It's awfully hard to win a 100 dash when the person you're competing against has been given a 20 yard head start. Not that it can't be done, but it does make winning the race more difficult.

And, you're right, many blacks have done quite well economically, socially, politically, etc. here in America. Makes me proud to be able to say that. Thankfully, our ancestors implored us to be "twice as good," because that's what it often took for us to be successful in America.

There is no question that slavery and then Jim Crow harmed blacks at that time - and probably for a generation or two afterwards. But at some point one can't continue to use the same excuse when other cultures have come here more recently, without the benefit of affirmative action, and lacking the English language or a high number of kinfolk in the region, have nevertheless been much more successful than blacks.

It seems to me that one must first prove that blacks do well in the absence of a slavery history before one can rationally assert that the cause of black underperformance in America is due to slavery. How are the Eritreans doing in Switzerland? How are the Somalians doing in Sweden? How are the Congolese performing in Australia? They're performing poorly by any metric. Those countries don't have slavery and those immigrants didn't experience slavery.

I'll believe that slavery from 7 generations ago is a cause for black underperformance in America today as soon as I see an example of blacks performing equitably in any other country.

And I'll take this opportunity to reiterate what I've said in the past. America has a duty to find a way to get blacks to be successful here. America brought them here against their will and have a duty to make it right. If programs like Head Start and Affirmative Action prove to be successful, then we should continue to pursue them. All I'm saying is that we need to try and diagnose the problem accurately. This blaming of slavery from 7 generations ago could conceivably be accurate, but it might not. I'd like to see some evidence that shows it's accurate before we proceed based on a faulty premise.

i can only tell u these are shallow, myopic, racist views. you're entitled to have them of course, and interpret data whichever way you wish but if i were in your shoes i'd just give thanks to the most high for what has been benefited by virtue of circumstances of birth and leave it at that.

[dckingsfan]

So, back on topic. Should potential immigrants coming to the United States accept our Common Law? Is it a bargained for exchange for becoming a citizen.

Or do we feel that the new citizens should be allowed to have their own cultures and laws?

[nate33]

i can only tell u these are shallow, myopic, racist views. you're entitled to have them of course, and interpret data whichever way you wish but if i were in your shoes i'd just give thanks to the most high for what has been benefited by virtue of circumstances of birth and leave it at that.

And here come the insults.

What exactly in my last post was shallow, myopic or racist? Because I don't accept the premise that slavery from 7 generations ago is the primary cause of black underperformance today? What exactly makes you so certain that slavery is the cause? Why must I explain my rationale while you get to sit back and hurl insults with no examination of your premise?

[crackhed]

i can only tell u these are shallow, myopic, racist views. you're entitled to have them of course, and interpret data whichever way you wish but if i were in your shoes i'd just give thanks to the most high for what has been benefited by virtue of circumstances of birth and leave it at that.

And here come the insults.

What exactly in my last post was shallow, myopic or racist? Because I don't accept the premise that slavery from 7 generations ago is the primary cause of black underperformance today? What exactly makes you so certain that slavery is the cause? Why must I explain my rationale while you get to sit back and hurl insults with no examination of your premise?

since you conveniently cut out ur previous post, i'll repost it..

There is no question that slavery and then Jim Crow harmed blacks at that time - and probably for a generation or two afterwards. But at some point one can't continue to use the same excuse when other cultures have come here more recently, without the benefit of affirmative action, and lacking the English language or a high number of kinfolk in the region, have nevertheless been much more successful than blacks.
so how many of these other cultures were brought here specifically to serve the white man as his slave? and btw how long ago did this end? 100yrs ago? 150?

It seems to me that one must first prove that blacks do well in the absence of a slavery history before one can rationally assert that the cause of black underperformance in America is due to slavery. How are the Eritreans doing in Switzerland? How are the Somalians doing in Sweden? How are the Congolese performing in Australia? They're performing poorly by any metric. Those countries don't have slavery and those immigrants didn't experience slavery.
this question exposes a bias that race, not circumstance, is the primary determining factor of an groups ability to succeed.

I'll believe that slavery from 7 generations ago is a cause for black underperformance in America today as soon as I see an example of blacks performing equitably in any other country.
again here you go with reiterating global 'black underperformance'... how recently have blacks been emigrating to the americas and europe? in what numbers and under what circumstances in comparison to other groups?

[pineappleheadindc]

Donald Trump is in trouble on his abortion answer and I have no idea why.

If I got this correctly, he says that he wants abortion to be illegal and that, when illegal, if a woman has an abortion she should be punished.

My side, the pro-choice side, don't like that. We think that's horrible. But we all know that's how my side would feel, so Trump shouldn't get any grief for that, right? There are just two sides of the debate and we hate Ted Cruz's position on abortion and he's not in trouble for his views like Trump is.

Apparently, the pro-life side is mad at him for his answer too and that gets me completely confused. Why? If you think abortion is murder, then the mother -- a willing participant in the fetus' murder -- should be punished just as much as a wife who hires a hit man to kill her husband. Right?

I don't know how much of this is a real controversy and how much of this is just (a) media hype, and/or; (b) Establishment Republicans looking to trip up Trump. But the bottom line is that of all the things that Trump has said, *this* seems like among the most UNcontroversial things to get worked up about.

My dos centavos.

[popper]

So, back on topic. Should potential immigrants coming to the United States accept our Common Law? Is it a bargained for exchange for becoming a citizen.

Or do we feel that the new citizens should be allowed to have their own cultures and laws?

Absolutely. That's the bargain IMO and we should make that crystal clear the moment an immigrant sets foot in our country.

[dckingsfan]

Pine, on abortion - I "think" that the pro-life folks want what is best for the mother and the baby. And their notion is that many women who have abortions often feel they "have to" it is a last ditch desperation move and then they deeply regret their decision.

So, I "think" a pro-lifer wouldn't want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion and feels deep remorse.

I "think" they don't want to be looked at as extremist - which seems to be clearly outside of mainstream beliefs. But, I guess that shouldn't be a huge surprise.

[dckingsfan]

A very nuanced article in the WSJ Friday opinion about why we should go ahead with the TPP. I have been on the fence on the agreement - it tilted me toward the agreement. Seems not to be blocked by the fire wall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lee-hsien-loongs-american-exceptionalism-1459464855

[tontoz]

As fate would have it i just got done watching Selma on DVD. Blacks had the legal right to vote but were routinely denied when they tried to register in the south. They were beaten/shot for doing nothing other than peacefully demonstrating. Four little girls were blown up in a church. Nobody was ever prosecuted for any of these crimes.

That was in 1965, the year before i was born.

[nate33]

Donald Trump is in trouble on his abortion answer and I have no idea why.

If I got this correctly, he says that he wants abortion to be illegal and that, when illegal, if a woman has an abortion she should be punished.

My side, the pro-choice side, don't like that. We think that's horrible. But we all know that's how my side would feel, so Trump shouldn't get any grief for that, right? There are just two sides of the debate and we hate Ted Cruz's position on abortion and he's not in trouble for his views like Trump is.

Apparently, the pro-life side is mad at him for his answer too and that gets me completely confused. Why? If you think abortion is murder, then the mother -- a willing participant in the fetus' murder -- should be punished just as much as a wife who hires a hit man to kill her husband. Right?

I don't know how much of this is a real controversy and how much of this is just (a) media hype, and/or; (b) Establishment Republicans looking to trip up Trump. But the bottom line is that of all the things that Trump has said, *this* seems like among the most UNcontroversial things to get worked up about.

My dos centavos.

The reason Trump is getting so much flak for the comment is that he is pulling the thread that completely unwinds the tapestry of the pro-life position. Pro-lifers believe they have the moral high ground because they are defending the life of the innocent. They even manage to get a minority of women voters to agree with them. They do so because nobody really considers the true ramifications of their position. It's one thing to beat your chest and claim that you are an advocate for innocent babies. It's quite another to actually enforce your position through the only logically consistent method: punishing those who commit abortion as accessories to murder.

When pro-lifers, particularly female pro-lifers think that through, many will shift to the pro-choice stance. Trump's truth-speak may have just dealt a crippling blow to the entire pro life movement.

I'm curious whether or not Trump was planning this all along. Blowing up the pro-life coalition is one more step to bringing more traditional conservatives to his more moderate, populist position. Trump has never really declared his policy on abortion clearly. He has labeled himself "pro-life", but he hasn't yet stated he would ban abortions except for third trimester abortions. He is maintaining the flexibility to be pretty moderate on abortion. He could easily state in a general election that he want's third trimester abortions banned, and he'll forbid federal funding of abortion, but he has no interest in making first trimester abortions illegal. That's a completely moderate position palatable to all but the most extreme feminists.