This is topic The Arizona Gubernatorial Debate and the Bizarre Performance of Jan Brewer in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Seriously. That's bizarre. I'm not making any character judgments on her one way or the other. I'm just saying that I've never seen a major political figure fall apart quite so visibly and completely in this type of event. Losing your train of thought or blanking happens to everyone, but wow, what a time to have it happen at.
What happened afterward was strange as well. It would have been far less of a story if she had just recanted or defended herself rather than stand there looking absolutely lost and then running away. First off, where were her handlers? If they were absent to prove the point that she doesn't need handling, well, they certainly failed in that endeavor. She wasn't even particularly good at pivoting back to parroting party talking points, except a little bit here and there about evil unions and evil federal government, but even that felt forced and unclear.
It's almost painful to watch.
As a side note, she's blowing Goddard (the Democratic opponent) out of the water in the polls, and analysts don't see this performance changing that very much. I'm not even personally sure that it should, but, I will say that I find it troublesome that the part she blanked on in the opening was when she was talking about her accomplishments. "These are all the great things I've done for Arizona...uhhh, well um...you know, we helped a lot!" That's a little troubling. If she can't even remember what she did, why would you want her back? I mean unless you really want her to do nothing. I guess that would make Libertarians happy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's almost painful to watch.
Almost?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Wow, that was amazing.
--j_k
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm saying this as an outsider who knows nothing about Arizona state politics in general, but I can't believe that this isn't changing poll numbers. I don't care that she had a little brain-freeze at the beginning; that can happen to anyone. But the empty-headed look in her eyes when she was pressed on the beheading statement was, well, upsetting, coming from someone who holds a place of power like that.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I'm saying this as an outsider who knows nothing about Arizona state politics in general, but I can't believe that this isn't changing poll numbers. I don't care that she had a little brain-freeze at the beginning; that can happen to anyone. But the empty-headed look in her eyes when she was pressed on the beheading statement was, well, upsetting, coming from someone who holds a place of power like that.
Well it's a pretty red state.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It was really weird watching the challenger tout the low crime rate, and the incumbent playing UP violent crime.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Maybe she's taking lessons from the Grand Moff Tarkin school of governance:
quote:Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away. General Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy? Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.
This can only mean one thing: Jan Brewer is building a Death Star.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
She's still a better choice thn Terry Goddard. He was raised by Jawas. Bring on Jan and her Death Star.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I'm saying this as an outsider who knows nothing about Arizona state politics in general, but I can't believe that this isn't changing poll numbers. I don't care that she had a little brain-freeze at the beginning; that can happen to anyone. But the empty-headed look in her eyes when she was pressed on the beheading statement was, well, upsetting, coming from someone who holds a place of power like that.
Well it's a pretty red state.
Very insightful commentary, that. Thank you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's kind of neat when the derailing sort of turns into a grabbing at talking points.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Lifelong resident of Arizona here to help clear some of loose bits.
I'm not worried about beheadings in the desert perse, Im more concerned with not being one of the people who get a shallow grave in the desert no matter how they are killed. Its just a fact, people dissapear and the right people dont care. If some college student from Scottsdale goes missing its a red alert but the cops have no time for junkies hobos and illegals. Worse than that is all the dead left by the coyote's on the way here, men women and children left to dry by men so callous that it can be impolite to itterate the liberties they take with thier "cargo." The AZ/MEX border is something like a pressure cooker, the more you cap it the worse the pressure and the result went that lid moves just a lil bit. Mexico has murder on the streets of thier cities and whole towns where police are just gangsters in uniform, and the longer the cartels are allowed to freely prey on illegal immigrints in AZ the closer my home resembles Mexico City.
Crime... crime reports are a funny thing, because they are just reported crime. I dont really care about any statistics when it comes to trafficking in AZ. Drugs, weapons humans and sex slave trafficking, my home sees alot of it and it is ever so barely acknowledged by anyone with a position to lose. Drug addicts play in thier own little world in Phoenix, the police dont care enough to shake them down enough. A large homeless community, almost undistinguishable from the drug addict steal and beg for thier booze daily.
Economy, Brewer may be the governor of Arizona but I doubt she lives on the same budget as the vast majority of us under her governorship. To say that money-wise anything is differant in AZ is to lie, even before the recession we were a poor state and have been for quite some time. Hopefully the algea-fuel thing will kick up and provide desperatly needed middle income minimal education jobs for those of us who need a chance to earn our livings. Wages were always low, jobs were always hard to find and you could always be fired for not being liked by someone higher than you, and nothing has changed.
I cant truely itterate why I love my home, you have to see and feel it for yourself. But I have no faith in my local govt. and mostly bury my head in the gravel when it comes to idea of an honest person winning an election. Joe Arpiao is sheriff of the most populated and richest county, John McCain is the senator and Jan Brewer is the governor. You figure out the problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I'm saying this as an outsider who knows nothing about Arizona state politics in general, but I can't believe that this isn't changing poll numbers. I don't care that she had a little brain-freeze at the beginning; that can happen to anyone. But the empty-headed look in her eyes when she was pressed on the beheading statement was, well, upsetting, coming from someone who holds a place of power like that.
Well it's a pretty red state.
It really isn't anymore. It almost swung blue in the last presidential election.
----
That was painful to watch, I'd almost prefer she had said nothing, rather than lapsing onto talking points. Does that really impress anybody? Or rather, is it better than the alternative?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The swing was the young vote, but as already proven the younger more liberal do not hold majority and more importantly do not have anyone worth voting for. Definatly willing to vote against McCain again though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Young liberals aren't going to come out to vote against someone. They have to be motivated the way Obama motivated them in 2008. I don't know if he can do that again, and I don't see anyone in the pipeline that's likely to run (though there are motivating figures on both sides for that demographic) in the near term.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Wow. For most people, a performance like that would amount to a resignation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has put the kibosh on all future debates with her Arizona gubernatorial opponent Terry Goddard (D), after her rather embarrassing display at Wednesday's debate. "I don't believe that things come out in proper context in an adversarial atmosphere," she defended herself.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Goddard can spend the next two months saying she's too afraid to debate him, and I doubt anyone will deny him.
The funny thing is, I think she actually has a point about debates, but context didn't really matter at all with her collapse. It was her opening statement! It's not like she was being challenged, she had an open floor to say whatever she wanted to. As for what happened afterward, that was akin to any of a million press events, and has nothing to do with a debate format.
Debates, for me anyway, tend to be next to useless. It's too orchestrated, too much parroting of pre-rehearsed lines and zingers that were clearly written before. The only thing you can hope for is that you perform better, and I mean that in the way I mean an actor puts on a performance. It has nothing to do with any qualification other than line memorization and delivery. The only time anything else matters is when the style is a bit more free-wheeling, and then we see how good they can think and speak extemporaneously, which is really the only thing I care about.
Obama and McCain had one solid, sweet debate that felt more unscripted than anything I ever remember seeing.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Yeah, I have trouble answering questions when people ask me questions also. Thats why Im not responsible for the well being of others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I really like how much attention the pause gets, but realistically it's what she manages to put out which really gets noteworthy to me. Fudging out appeals to fear and stuff about headless bodies in the desert.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Hmm- Arizona politician does something stupid. Wow, newsworthy item there. Growing up in AZ, my memory of politics was one embarrassment after another. Mecham, Symington- all guys to make you proud.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
AZ just gets more attention these days because their incompetence is now central to demonstrating why immigration reform is a sailed ship we're too late to get on board with, all while conservatives squander their goodwill with hispanics and doom themselves demographically over the next 20 years.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I'm saying this as an outsider who knows nothing about Arizona state politics in general, but I can't believe that this isn't changing poll numbers. I don't care that she had a little brain-freeze at the beginning; that can happen to anyone. But the empty-headed look in her eyes when she was pressed on the beheading statement was, well, upsetting, coming from someone who holds a place of power like that.
Well it's a pretty red state.
Very insightful commentary, that. Thank you.
Lol, I didn't mean to be offensive. I just meant that its going to be pretty hard to vote out an incumbent Republican there.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
For one thing, she has this job because Janet Napolitano selected her to take over. Before this she was Secretary of State. Which is still no easy job, but not one that requires quite as much public confrontation as this. I think she's operating over her skill set.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't know if you can say Napolitano selected her. If Napolitano had a choice, she probably would have picked someone else. In Arizona, the line of succession for governor is SecState first.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I'm saying this as an outsider who knows nothing about Arizona state politics in general, but I can't believe that this isn't changing poll numbers. I don't care that she had a little brain-freeze at the beginning; that can happen to anyone. But the empty-headed look in her eyes when she was pressed on the beheading statement was, well, upsetting, coming from someone who holds a place of power like that.
Well it's a pretty red state.
Very insightful commentary, that. Thank you.
Lol, I didn't mean to be offensive. I just meant that its going to be pretty hard to vote out an incumbent Republican there.
Oh, yeah, I think I misread you a little bit then. Thanks for clarifying. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Has it occurred to anyone that she might have had a microstroke or something? I know I get tongue tied a lot, and it's really frustrating, almost as if I was stuttering, except that no words come out. I know the word I want is in there, but everything comes to a complete halt. You can't fight the way your brain works.
That's what it looked like to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That was actually my first theory. There's an expression that flits across her face at one point that I keep reading as "Oh, no. What is happening to my brain?!"
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I usually couldn't care less if an extreme right-wing politician has a bad day, but my heart goes out to her. That's got to be uncomfortable, to have that big of a brain fart on live television.
[ September 04, 2010, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, schadenfreude can be great when you know that a right winger has been caught off guard and can't defend their position, but that isn't the case here.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
It's kind of cruel to be enjoying this or to make a big deal about it just because Brewer supports actually dealing with her state's immigration problem (and it is a problem: Mexico is dumping its underclass into the United States.)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Dont worry about it, its just in fashion to criticize AZ right now. Montana is next. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It's kind of cruel to be enjoying this or to make a big deal about it just because Brewer supports actually dealing with her state's immigration problem (and it is a problem: Mexico is dumping its underclass into the United States.)
Their tired, poor, huddled masses, eh? Historically, I don't think they're alone in that regard.
--j_k
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, when folks start using terms like 'underclass', it always conveys a message they do not intend.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ahh, when folks start using terms like 'underclass', it always conveys a message they do not intend.
There's an underclass in Mexico and the Mexican government is dealing with it by placing it in the United States.
Look, immigrant quality matters, and illegal immigrants from Hispanic countries by and large are not high quality immigrants. That's why they have to be illegal: because they could not have received the clearance to immigrants going by the standards by which everyone else from non-Hispanic countries is held to, and which we presumably also have to legal immigrants from Hispanic countries.
Anyway, Hispanics are, by and large, more of a net drain than a net gain. Yes they work, but in their place America could have imported and could still import millions of people who work and aren't as problematic (i.e, requiring affirmative action/government minority set asides/welfare.)
There's the hope that the children of illegal Hispanic parents will considerably out perform their parents, yet this remains a fantasy. How long have Hispanics been in Southern California and just exactly what has been their contribution to that cultural heartland? How many Mexican authors can your name? Mexican musicans? Architects, mathematicians, scientists? Certainly there are instances of each but by and large the contribution of Mexicans to things that really matter is negligible.
Just compare the page for Mexican-Americans to the page for Chinese Americans:
The Chinese American list of famous Chinese manages to be more impressive -- and Chinese Americans are only 0.641.2% of the U.S population whereas Mexicans are (and it's probably fairly higher) 12.5% of the U.S. population. Mexicans have less human capital than the Chinese. Just imagine if instead of all those Hispanics the U.S got Chinese immigrants. We'd probably be in better shape economically AND we'd be better able to afford a more generous welfare state.
In any case, there's a case to be made for restricting endless immigration from Mexico. The fundamental problem is that liberals don't feel right saying "no...you can't immigrate here." But that's what the government does all the time. It's just so happens that the people who are rejected mostly don't come here anyway, and if they do and are deported than the deportation tends to be the end of it considering the distances involved. And most liberals are fine with this and live with it. Yet they can't bring themselves to support policies which would in effect place on Mexico/central American countries similar obstacles that would prevent being flooded by those countries' low-human capital people.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Maybe she is a Manchurian Candidate?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: It's kind of cruel to be enjoying this or to make a big deal about it just because Brewer supports actually dealing with her state's immigration problem (and it is a problem: Mexico is dumping its underclass into the United States.)
You're starting with an assumption that I don't think is true, which is that people are making a big deal of this because of what Brewer has done with immigration in AZ. When in reality, I imagine many people are making a big deal of this because a governor made one of the most embarrassingly painful opening statements in a debate I've ever seen, then later when asked a question stood blank faced for an inordinate amount of time before running away.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Honestly, I don't see that the first bit is that bad. It looked to me like she had a prepared set of comments and she lost her place. It was embarrassing, sure, but in and of itself not any indication that she's unfit for the job.
The second bit, well, she lied about something, got called out, and then tried to switch to her defined talking points. When that didn't work, she ran away. I look pretty unfavorably on that, but isn't that kind of common in politics? I know that it's easy to say that this is the Sarah Palin model, but really, it existed before Sarah Palin made it the primary way she dealt with things.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Whatever happened to politicians who were good liars?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The Chinese American list of famous Chinese manages to be more impressive -- and Chinese Americans are only 0.641.2% of the U.S population whereas Mexicans are (and it's probably fairly higher) 12.5% of the U.S. population. Mexicans have less human capital than the Chinese. Just imagine if instead of all those Hispanics the U.S got Chinese immigrants. We'd probably be in better shape economically AND we'd be better able to afford a more generous welfare state.
Sure, I'll play along with your racist tripe for a moment, to highlight how easy it is to puncture and ridicule even by its own standards.
Chinese-American 'human capital' (the way you're using the term isn't odious or anything) is bound to be higher than Mexican-American simply because of selection process pressures that are higher that have nothing at all to do with the people themselves but the distances and difficulties involved.
Chinese-Americans, particularly illegal Chinese-Americans, are fleeing a country that is more oppressive than Mexico, in some cases is more poor than Mexico, must cross the world's largest ocean, assimilate into a smaller population in the United States, and cross a much larger language barrier than Mexicans. Mexican-American immigrants, particularly illegal ones, have much fewer hurdles to jump. You're not going to magically say 'no more Mexicans' and replace them with Chinese. So even by your own lights, your racist, offensive screed fails utterly.
And that doesn't even get into the foolishness of saying 'Chinese-Americans have more famous people', therefore they're better immigrants. Hey, JanitorBlade, how does obvious, offensive racism rate around here in terms of violating policy?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB]
quote: The Chinese American list of famous Chinese manages to be more impressive -- and Chinese Americans are only 0.641.2% of the U.S population whereas Mexicans are (and it's probably fairly higher) 12.5% of the U.S. population. Mexicans have less human capital than the Chinese. Just imagine if instead of all those Hispanics the U.S got Chinese immigrants. We'd probably be in better shape economically AND we'd be better able to afford a more generous welfare state.
Sure, I'll play along with your racist tripe for a moment, to highlight how easy it is to puncture and ridicule even by its own standards.
Chinese-American 'human capital' (the way you're using the term isn't odious or anything) is bound to be higher than Mexican-American simply because of selection process pressures that are higher that have nothing at all to do with the people themselves but the distances and difficulties involved.
This refutes nothing I said and I pretty much agree with it. Selection matters. We're not selecting high-quality Mexicans but rather the ones who would have been rejected by the government have decided to move here anyway by the millions. And for some reason liberals are irate that some people would have a problem with this.
quote: Chinese-Americans, particularly illegal Chinese-Americans, are fleeing a country that is more oppressive than Mexico, in some cases is more poor than Mexico, must cross the world's largest ocean, assimilate into a smaller population in the United States, and cross a much larger language barrier than Mexicans. Mexican-American immigrants, particularly illegal ones, have much fewer hurdles to jump. You're not going to magically say 'no more Mexicans' and replace them with Chinese. So even by your own lights, your racist, offensive screed fails utterly.
So what? The argument is that more hurdles should be created so that Mexico's underclass (and those from other Hispanic countries) doesn't keep flooding into the U.S. And what's the point of mentioning what different hurdles Chinese immigrants go through? The point is that they're mostly approved by the U.S...same for all other Asian countries. Not so with Mexico. Do note that the great and tolerant Canada is not selecting Mexico's underclass as immigrants.
[ September 05, 2010, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
These Mexican immigrants are not upwardly mobile. They are poor and will stay poor.
(the first one and the last three.)
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Uh oh...
from the WaPO article:
quote: Javier Saavedra, son of Mexican immigrants, is struggling to get a well-paying job after dropping out of high school and leaving behind gang life. Whether Saavedra and his peers succeed will have consequences far beyond immigrant circles: The offspring of Hispanic immigrants already make up one of every ten children in the United States.
quote: Not since the last great wave of immigration to the United States around 1900 has the country's economic future been so closely entwined with the generational progress of an immigrant group. And so far, on nearly every measure, the news is troubling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:These Mexican immigrants are not upwardly mobile. They are poor and will stay poor.
Yes, your use of racist rhetoric and anecdote has certainly proven your premise.
And please kindly stop lying and saying I'm agreeing with you, since I'm not. I didn't say 'selection matters', I said you were full of crap when you said 'Chinese are better than Mexicans'. Which was the message you obviously intended to convey. As for the 'low-quality' Mexicans, we are selecting them. We hire them by the hundreds of thousands. They don't come here and clap guns to the heads of employers and say, "Hire me!"
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:These Mexican immigrants are not upwardly mobile. They are poor and will stay poor.
Yes, your use of racist rhetoric and anecdote has certainly proven your premise.
What racist rhetoric?
quote: And please kindly stop lying and saying I'm agreeing with you, since I'm not. I didn't say 'selection matters', I said you were full of crap when you said 'Chinese are better than Mexicans'.
I said that I agree with you (though I typed "agree" as "agrees"). Sheesh.
And its dishonest of you to use quotes around a phrase I didn't write.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Perhaps the lack of success of second generation immigrants instead speaks to a failing in our society which makes it almost impossible for the poor to succeed. Economists have done studies showing that in the land of opportunity, if you are born poor, you'll likely die poor (but in Canada and those other crazy socialist countries, your parents income matters far less so that isn't just a matter of genetic selection). But it is far easier to just claim racist BS than actually look at the complex issues regarding poverty, education, health care, etc.
Also, keep in mind, with Mexico's quotas and so forth, being legal can take over 2 decades. China has a lot faster waiting list.
ETA- from the article you listed it says that the European immigrants took 3-4 generations to get to the level of middle class, including a college degree, so it looks like Mexican immigrants are not that far behind the European immigrant's rate.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] As for the 'low-quality' Mexicans, we are selecting them. We hire them by the hundreds of thousands. They don't come here and clap guns to the heads of employers and say, "Hire me!"
This is simply explained by tragedy of the commons. Americans were given the option of cheap labor and they took it, never mind what the long-term affects of letting in millions of uneducated Mexicans would be, and many individuals made the short-sighted decision to hire illegals so they could profit. However, policy could have been put in place which prevented these illegals from securing employment or even staying in the country. The shortsightedness of American employers is no defense of endless, low-human capital Latino immigration.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Perhaps the lack of success of second generation immigrants instead speaks to a failing in our society which makes it almost impossible for the poor to succeed.
Please suggest how this "failing" could be fixed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And its dishonest of you to use quotes around a phrase I didn't write.
You don't have to write something to say it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Improvements in education, health care reform are two big ones. Credit banking reforms against companies that prey on the poor. Things like midnight basketball also could help. Help with babysitting so kids can stay in school, maternity leave (see recent case where woman had c-section, took 11 weeks off, failed to qualify for federal leave and despite her boss's promise to hold her job, was fired for missing too long and court upheld the companies decision).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: ETA- from the article you listed it says that the European immigrants took 3-4 generations to get to the level of middle class, including a college degree, so it looks like Mexican immigrants are not that far behind the European immigrant's rate.
Listen, scholarette, don't go bringing in demographic facts into the discussion. They're just 'low human-capital' Mexicans.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Technically, he brought them in first. Assuming of course he read the article.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: ETA- from the article you listed it says that the European immigrants took 3-4 generations to get to the level of middle class, including a college degree, so it looks like Mexican immigrants are not that far behind the European immigrant's rate. [/QB]
But what was America like back then? Was a high school education available to all? Was there discrimination against non-Protestants? Were there welfare benefits? Immigrants today simply have a far greater chance to become upwardly middle by the second generation as evidenced by Asians. One merely hopes that Mexican-Americans will achieve. Asians already do. Why not prefer the latter and restrict the numbers of the former?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
In response to the "it's going to take them 3 or 4 generations" point: how long have Puerto Ricans been in the US? And how about Mexicans? There have always been Mexicans in the U.S since Texas was acquired.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Actually from your article, they are much more successful than their parents so they are upwardly mobile. Second generation are often getting 7-8 grade levels more than their parents, which is a pretty big deal. Unfortunately, it is not enough. Also, we are looking specifically at 2nd generation americans. Are you now making the claim that the 5th generation Mexicans are unsuccessful- cause all your data so far has addressed first and second.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This'll be an artful display of bs hackery that doesn't directly address your point:) If I liked popcorn, I'd munch some.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ahh, when folks start using terms like 'underclass', it always conveys a message they do not intend.
He intends it and only wants to mask what he would genuinely say on the subject this early; he thinks that people of chinese ethnicity are inherently superior to people of hispanic ethnicity and will eventually get around to stating that, first in a roundabout way, then more directly, then bluntly. All the while denying racism.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Olson Johnson: All right... we'll give some land to the n****s and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish! [everyone complains] "
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Just imagine if instead of all those Hispanics the U.S got Chinese immigrants. We'd probably be in better shape economically AND we'd be better able to afford a more generous welfare state.
I agree with you that we need to welcome skilled over unskilled workers, but that has everything to do with better enforcement of our current laws and nothing to do with a Chinese people/Mexican people racial dichotomy. For heaven's sake. Your shit stirring makes people less likely to be persuaded by your actual, legitimate point.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: "Olson Johnson: All right... we'll give some land to the n****s and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish! [everyone complains] "
Surely the best Mel ever to sit behind a camera.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The perpetual desire for cheap labor is rather different than the tragedy of the commons . . .
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I wanted to make a thread about the current events involving the Roma in europe and the recent controversies and evictions but stuff like this reinforces the fact that this forum's not ready to touch that yet as long as we've got clive candy lurking about.
Welp, maybe sometime in the future.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I feel somewhat conflicted. I think the historical out-performance of Chinese immigrants will likely narrow somewhat in the future. On the other hand, its a welcome change having conservatives advocate increased Chinese immigration for once. So meh.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
I am also conflicted. While I want more Chinese people to immigrate here to the US, I also care enough about China to not want it to suffer a brain drain.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
You care about a communist country using international capatilism to the financial benefit of the government but not the people?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:You care about a communist country using international capatilism to the financial benefit of the government but not the people?
Wrong. Since China's economic reforms in the '70s, they've reduced their poverty rate from 64% to 10%. That's more than 500 million people lifted out of poverty. China's continued economic rise can and will improve the standard of living of 20% of the world population dramatically. China's economic collapse would do the opposite-- do you see why I'd be worried about a brain drain? Not that a major brain drain is at a serious risk of happening, mind, intellectuals are more happy in China now than ever since the university reforms, but I don't want the US to throw its doors wide open to all Chinese immigrants either.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Also, define communism as you're using it. Seriously. That word is being used in such strange ways lately that I'm not even sure it has a meaning anymore. What kind of communism do you think China operates under, and what is the problem with it?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Im not afraid to admit that I dont know much about China, but they are communistic, they essentially finance N. Korea, have a thriving international sex slavery industry and are developing military technology to directly oppose American naval ships. I am not very sympathetic for a theoretical loss for China.
quote: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Does China not fit into that definition?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Wrong. Since China's economic reforms in the '70s, they've reduced their poverty rate from 64% to 10%
That's a nice statistic that anybody can read on Wikipedia. Sure'd be nice if an independent research firm could confirm such wonderful news.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
1. "but they are communistic" "All economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party" Nope. Not since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform (Wikipedia for convenience, feel free to comb through the actual linked references for inconsistencies if you're worried about its validity) China's economy is essentially capitalist, even if it's far more state-controlled than the Western versions of capitalism. The single party thing is true. China isn't a democracy.
2. "finance N. Korea" What do you mean by "finance"? They are trading partners, yes, which gains them the leverage needed to get N. Korea to talk to anyone at all. What's China supposed to do, break all ties with N. Korea and impose draconian sanctions on it? That would threaten the precarious peace we have with N. Korea and possibly make it do something desperate. And it's not like China is the only country in the world with unpopular trading partners. Israel is our ally, after all, and it's just as unpopular in the world as N. Korea (let's NOT get into an argument over the net effect of Israel on the world, please. It's just that in the lack of an objective "most evil countries" list, "most unpopular countries" is the closest substitute we have).
3. "have a thriving international sex slavery industry" Elaborate. Sex trafficking occurs in China, as it does in many less developed countries in the world, and even in more developed countries like our own. Do you think the government is actively supporting it? If so, evidence please.
4. "and are developing military technology to directly oppose American naval ships." Erm. So since China doesn't share all the same strategic interests as America... and is trying to catch up a little to America's overwhelming military edge over everyone in the world... it's evil? If evil increases proportionally to "intent to develop powerful military technology," China isn't the problem here.
"Im not afraid to admit that I dont know much about China"
So you don't know much, if at all, about China, and yet you still wouldn't mind if it "lost" (by which I'm guessing you mean something like "collapses as a country"). So the 500 million+ people possibly slipping into poverty again don't bother you? How about the economic effects on the rest of the world, including America? You haven't provided nearly enough evidence to prove that the Chinese government is a net negative on the wellbeing of its own citizens, let alone the world.
Also, I feel like everyone should be ashamed to admit to making extraordinary judgments without extraordinary evidence, let alone with hardly any evidence at all. But that's just a personal quibble.
[ September 06, 2010, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:That's a nice statistic that anybody can read on Wikipedia. Sure'd be nice if an independent research firm could confirm such wonderful news.
Edit: Wait, you didn't even bother to click on the reference links on Wikipedia before assuming it was providing unverified info?
I think the WorldBank is pretty independent from the Chinese government...
quote: While this at least sounds encouraging, it masks regional variations, and perhaps most glaringly the impact of China:
Chinas poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600 million people China accounts for nearly all the worlds reduction in poverty Excluding China, poverty fell only by around 10%
As a result, the World Bank feels that while China is on target to reach the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty and tackle various other issues, most other countries are not.
[ September 06, 2010, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
sinflower/AchillesHeel: The argument appears to be premised on the idea that immigration is a net negative for China and whether that should be encouraged or not in order to either help or hurt China.
I suspect that this basic assumption is flawed, or at the very least incomplete. One simple idea is that of, "don't keep all your eggs in one basket." Another is to consider:
quote:Both China and Russia had a common communist past and both had abundant human resources. Russia was initially better off because of its trained scientists and engineers. Gorbachev threw open the doors to Russia but no one came, contrary to the Chinese experience. This puzzle is easily explained, but it makes the Chinese success even more intriguing.
Why did Russia fail in attracting foreign direct investment? Western investors had to cast a dubious eye on investments in Russia. Only a few Russians had experience in world markets, and they had all worked for the foreign trade monopoly. There was no one who could credibly explain to foreign business what would happen if contracts were violated, how investments could be secured in the absence of private property laws, or how these investments were to be integrated into what was still a planned economy. Western concerns were being asked to make huge infrastructure investments in energy in the absence of any law on subsoil resources. There was simply no credible intermediary to stand between Russias desire for foreign investment and the willingness of the West to risk its capital in Russia.
Russia lacked a Russian Diaspora. A few Russians had emigrated to the United States and Israel. But China had a Greater China that numbered in the millions of Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Southeast Asia, and North America. These Greater Chinese, especially in Hong Kong and Taiwan, still had roots on the mainland. They had demonstrated their business acumen, and they understood the potential of a low-wage country with abundant human resources strategically situated in the heart of booming Southeast Asia. These Greater Chinese intermediaries could explain to investors how to invest and with whom. Who could be trusted? Who could not? Which government officials are reliable? Equally important, these intermediaries were successful and had business and property outside of China that could be used as collateral for doubting foreign investors.
Ooh, very interesting article! Yes, emigration can be a net positive for China, and has been in the case of Chinese people immigrating to Southeast Asian countries. I was operating from the idea that ethnic Chinese in America lose their ties to China more quickly, and end up in employed rather than entrepreneurial roles more often compared to ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asian countries, who end up owning a large proportion of the businesses in those countries.
Another view on emigration and investment, based on Russia, which was closer to what I was thinking about:
quote:Russias Generation Exile, a tide of businessmen, lawyers, accountants, and bankers who have fled their country after being robbed and threatened by Russias corrupt law-enforcement officials. Transparency International, an NGO, estimates that fully one third of Russian businesses have been targeted in attempted corporate raids by police. An anti-raider hotline set up by the Moscow city hall reported a 10-fold jump in complaints, from 200 to more than 2,000, over the last year. And while it is hard to calculate exactly how many of the estimated 300,000 Russians living in London are the victims or beneficiaries of police-backed shakedowns, the number of business exiles afraid to return to their homeland for fear of arrest is certainly in the thousands. According to a survey last year by the Moscow-based Levada Center, many more may exit voluntarily: 13 percent of 1,600 respondents said they wanted to leave Russia, the same percentage as in 1992, a year after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The economic impact of the brain drainand the bureaucratic racketeering that drives itis startling. In the decade since Vladimir Putin first came to power, Russia fell from 52nd to 63rd on the World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Index, despite massive oil-funded state spending and an ambitious--sounding modernization program. On property rights, Russia came 119th, right down there with Malawi and Nicaragua; on judicial independence, 116th; on reliability of police services, 112th; and on professional management, 77th. Despite steady macroeconomic growth driven by rising oil and gas prices, there are few signs that it is developing beyond oil. Only free, independent, and enterprising people are capable of being the driving forces behind modernization, but those are exactly the people whom the state is persecuting, says Vladimir Ryzhkov, a leader of a prominent opposition party, Another Russia. How can Russia attract Western investors when the countrys most successful businessmen are forced to flee the country for fear of arrest?
But China doesn't have the problems which drove that mass emigration, at least not to that extent, and supposedly even the Russian brain drain is slowing down now in the economic downturn. So my worry was probably overinflated.
I like this part of the article you linked too
quote:The success of Chinas entrepreneurs in creating the institutions of private markets is told by some remarkable statistics. In 1978, state enterprises generated about 80 percent of Chinas gdp, while the rural commune produced the other 20 percent.11 There were no private businesses. By 1997, there were 961,000 private enterprises and 28.5 million small family private firms. By 2002, the nonstate sectors share exceeded two-thirds of gdp, with the share produced by truly private companies comprising more than half. By 2004, there were more than three million private companies employing more than 47 million workers.12 Before 1980, entrepreneurial activity in China was illegal. Today, there are over 40 million entrepreneurs, whose businesses employ over 200 million and generate two-thirds of industrial output
For showing the magnitude of how China's economy has changed since the economic reforms.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
sinflower: I did look at the link. I looked up other studies too, and they all seem to be using the government's figures.
Look I'm not saying there haven't been huge strides in getting many Chinese people out of poverty. I'd be surprised if the Chinese government's numbers were exaggerated beyond 8%, even if we add that 8% it's still a strong achievement. But the fact remains the only large scaled social studies that take place in China (excluding Hong Kong) are government instigated, and the results don't come out unless the government says it's OK.
I use the US a lot in these discussions, but there are plenty of government reports where the data is fudged, and badly. Why should China be any better?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm intriqued by the AZ debate. AZ is the the first dominoe to fall in the immigration debate, just as CA is the first to fall in the liberal vs conservative one.
The self righteous liberal from Michigan agrees with the California Liberal when it comes to teacher's unions. Of course, Democrats are a a party of coalitions.....those from Michigan wouldn't like the cheap illegal alien labor and those from california wouldn't like the Michigan gun rights stance.
The truth shall set you free....the highest unemployment rates are in Michigan...Union states.....followed only by California, NY, NJ, MA.....any common thread here?
The highest murder rates are also in Dem strongholds....cities that have the stronges anti-gun laws, to boot.
If you like Obama's ideals, move to Detroit or Chicago.....there's no longer institution of what he stands for than what you'll find in those cities. He certainly brought hope and change to South Side........his first stepping stone.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Technically, at least both Pew and Gallup are allowed to do polling on income in China. But there's no way they'd be able to match the reach of an official census, which is pretty much the case in North America anyways.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Anyone else remember China's media manipulation during the olympics?
Polling Chinese citezens is like polling Auschwitz prisoners.
What ever happened to that guy who stood in front of that tank? In the US....he'd be a celebrity and we'd all know his name.
He's dead....murdered for the betterment of society. Progressives and socialists commit genocide, while Libertarians and conservatives respect the individual's "right to life".
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Wait.... I'm confused. When was sinflower on my side in these debates? When did this start happening?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... He's dead....murdered for the betterment of society. Progressives and socialists commit genocide, while Libertarians and conservatives respect the individual's "right to life".
I would note that while "tank man"'s fate remains unknown, it was the conservatives that ordered the military into Beijing, while progressives such as Zhao Ziyang (who voted against the move) were turfed out and put under house arrest.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm intriqued by the AZ debate. AZ is the the first dominoe to fall in the immigration debate, just as CA is the first to fall in the liberal vs conservative one.
The self righteous liberal from Michigan agrees with the California Liberal when it comes to teacher's unions. Of course, Democrats are a a party of coalitions.....those from Michigan wouldn't like the cheap illegal alien labor and those from california wouldn't like the Michigan gun rights stance.
The truth shall set you free....the highest unemployment rates are in Michigan...Union states.....followed only by California, NY, NJ, MA.....any common thread here?
The highest murder rates are also in Dem strongholds....cities that have the stronges anti-gun laws, to boot.
If you like Obama's ideals, move to Detroit or Chicago.....there's no longer institution of what he stands for than what you'll find in those cities. He certainly brought hope and change to South Side........his first stepping stone.
The murder rates are highest in areas with relatively high poverty and crime rates. None of that has anything to do with gun laws, and everything to do with 40 years of history under both Republican and Democratic control. Especially in Michigan, where on party hasn't had total control for any stretch of time in the last couple decades. We've been passed back and forth between parties, and both sides have had a shot with their own ideologies.
Also, while the unions had a small role to play in the problems of the Big Three, they weren't nearly the biggest factors. The Big Three totally abdicated control of several parts of the car market, and when the market violently shifted in 2000-2002, they were caught totally off guard by a nation that started to eschew SUVs and demand small cars. That was the fault of management being stupid, and while the unions didn't make things easy by demanding huge contracts (that management never should have given then in the 90s), they weren't even close to being the reason why Michigan's economy is in the crapper. It's in the crapper because an entire state based its economy on one major industry, and when that industry went belly up, it took the whole state with it.
It's like you're playing some sort of ideological statistical mad libs to prove causality, and it doesn't even hold up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... He's dead....murdered for the betterment of society. Progressives and socialists commit genocide, while Libertarians and conservatives respect the individual's "right to life".
I would note that while "tank man"'s fate remains unknown, it was the conservatives that ordered the military into Beijing, while progressives such as Zhao Ziyang (who voted against the move) were turfed out and put under house arrest.
Not to mention it was conservatives who murdered King and Gandhi. Conservatives also fired the first shots of the civil war, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But hey, it was also conservatives who didn't want to get involved in WWII, and the American Revolution.
Conservatives are willing to kill, if they weren't, they wouldn't need guns.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I really have no strong feelings about China (aside from the anti-carrier thing) and have little concern for the rise and fall of the Chinese govt. and will just concede this argument.
On the other hand, Blade? what proof do you have that the South Carolinian troops that fired at the ship Star of the West were conservatives?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Those on the state's side of things in the debate between state's rights and federal rights seem to be on the conservative side of the issue. Further, it was progressives who were trying to end slavery not conservatives.
edit: Or were you saying the actual troops might not have been conservative and were simply following orders?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's a pretty sneaky change of things, Achilles. It's likely you know perfectly well that that is not considered the opening shots of the American Civil War, especially since Buchanan specifically didn't do anything about it. It can't be called the first shots of the Civil War if war didn't ensue as a result of it.
Ruffin was believed to have fired the first shots but didn't, if I'm not mistaken, and it was a Confederate artillery officer. Are you seriously suggesting that a volunteer Confederate army officer wasn't a conservative, Achilles?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Conservatives are willing to kill, if they weren't, they wouldn't need guns.
I'm willing to kill to protect my family. A gun is simply easier than using my own hands. I'm not a gun crazed lunatic, but I want to make sure my family is safe.
In the event of a global apocalypse (Earth is covered in water, nuclear holocaust, or if dragons are unleashed from a London Subway tunnel) I think a gun would come in handy.
My wife will not allow guns in the house. We have no kids and she doesn't mind me shooting them once a year at our family reunion's skeet shoot, but she doesn't want one in our house. I'm ok with that. I almost have her convinced to let me get a high powered laser beam for protection instead.
Who needs to ruin good carpet and paint with blood when I can just shine this thing in someones eyes and burn their retinas so they go completely blind?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Horrific accident waiting to happen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Also, while the unions had a small role to play in the problems of the Big Three, they weren't nearly the biggest factors. The Big Three totally abdicated control of several parts of the car market, and when the market violently shifted in 2000-2002, they were caught totally off guard by a nation that started to eschew SUVs and demand small cars. That was the fault of management being stupid, and while the unions didn't make things easy by demanding huge contracts (that management never should have given then in the 90s), they weren't even close to being the reason why Michigan's economy is in the crapper. It's in the crapper because an entire state based its economy on one major industry, and when that industry went belly up, it took the whole state with it.
Small role? I'd give 30 to 50%. The union-demanded total compensation per worker made it significantly harder to be profitable making small cars (and the total compensation being provided by foreign car companies in the US that were making those small cars was pretty good; this wasn't a question of people being paid unfairly), largely tying CEO's hands.
The companies were required to keep employees around who did absolutely nothing unless they wanted to close a plant (and even closing a plant was something the union frequently prevented, again making it more expensive to respond to a changing market), making it much harder to adjust workforces to compete. What's more, the large debt obligations imposed by the incredible pensions the unions demanded kept financing more difficult to get.
There are plenty more, if we want to keep going.
How problematic they've been should be even more clear when you notice that, despite the total failure of two of the big three absent some of the most extreme government intervention there's been in private companies in decades, they've still been prevented from fully restructuring like they need to, because the unions used their clout to prevent many of the most needed changes (even going so far as to make it so only new hires could have their wages reduced to be in line with market wages for jobs of the type. And that most employees couldn't be fired, of course).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Geraine: I wasn't trying to comment on the ethics of owning a gun. Only that if you are going to posit that conservatives are the ones who value life, then owning a gun isn't exactly the ultimate expression of that belief.
I have thought about owning a gun on many occasions. Right now the furthest I am willing to go is to become proficient in their use, should I ever need to use one.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I really have no strong feelings about China (aside from the anti-carrier thing) and have little concern for the rise and fall of the Chinese govt. and will just concede this argument.
On the other hand, Blade? what proof do you have that the South Carolinian troops that fired at the ship Star of the West were conservatives?
The United States has 14 carriers, Britain, France, India, Thailand, Russia, and heck even Spain all have aircraft carriers, there is every justification for China being a Great Power and a member of the UN Security Council and hence having peacekeeping obligations and responsibilities should work towards getting aircraft carriers if it supports their national interests, China also has an extremely large and permeable coastline, even further reason for it to have a blue water navy.
There's also the chance of militerists gaining more traction in Japan and rearming beyond their current modest peacekeeper and self defense needs, of which every asian nation including China have ample reason to be concerned about.
That China and the US are strategic competitors is no big deal.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I understand what you are trying to get at Blackblade. I just don't think it is an accurate statement. Owning a gun does not express a belief. It is a tool just a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat are tools. Each have their uses, none are an extention of my beliefs. I am not an advocate for global warming just because I use a gardening hoe.
If I am still misunderstanding you I'm sorry. It was a long weekend and I'm in a foggy cloud of IDGAF today.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:We have no kids and she doesn't mind me shooting them once a year at our family reunion's skeet shoot, but she doesn't want one in our house. I'm ok with that. I almost have her convinced to let me get a high powered laser beam for protection instead.
Who needs to ruin good carpet and paint with blood when I can just shine this thing in someones eyes and burn their retinas so they go completely blind?
This led to an interesting series of online inquiries for me. Apparently blinding laser weapons like the one you link to are illegal in war:
On the other hand, it seems absurd to outlaw weapons which are clearly less harmful than guns. Blindness is a bad injury, but compared to the things bullets can do?
The rules of war can be so bizarre.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Owning a gun does not express a belief. It is a tool just a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat are tools. Each have their uses, none are an extention of my beliefs.
Wrong.
Owning a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat implies that you believe it is okay to dig, garden, or play baseball. Owning a gun for the purpose of potentially shooting someone is absolutely 1) an extension of your belief that you have the right to use deadly violence and 2) an indication that you are willing to exercise that right.
I would never own a gun for the very fact that I accept neither of those propositions.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I own five swords, two combat knives and two folding knives in addition to a plethera of training equipment and am well experianced with all of them. Several years of working in a knife store and three more of an extensive weapons martial art has left me very comfortable around edged weapons and curiously I have no need to stab people. There is one particularly demoralizingly long folder that I keep in my car just in case (I work the graveyard shift and my city has alot of junkies) but that fact absolutly does not make me an aggressive person or the type who looks forward to hurting people.
I have been attacked by strangers for no reason at all enough times in my life to know that my well being comes before anyone hostile enough to want to hurt me or any innocent person, if you had a facial scar to remind you of just how quickly someone with no weapon at all can alter your life you may change your position on this Dante. Weapons are simply tools that are designed for a task, owning them makes you no more violent than someone who owns a #2 pencil, now if that person stabs said pencil into someones one the facial orrifices that person is violent. The pencil did not make them that way. Pepper spray, stun guns, rope, kitchen utensils, actual construction tools and most household chemicals are all used to kidnap torture and kill people all around the modern world every year and yet somehow I dont expect you to refrain from owning anything like these objects.
I am a peaceful person, I pay taxes and put in forty hours a week and see no reason why a someone should be able to use violence to change my life. So does that make me a horrible person?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Weapons are simply tools that are designed for a task, owning them makes you no more violent than someone who owns a #2 pencil
I didn't argue that owning a gun makes someone violent. I said that it's an extension of the belief that using violence can be acceptable. Just as the fact that I don't and wouldn't own a gun is an extension of my belief that it's not. I didn't make a moral argument there.
quote:Pepper spray, stun guns, rope, kitchen utensils, actual construction tools and most household chemicals are all used to kidnap torture and kill people all around the modern world every year and yet somehow I dont expect you to refrain from owning anything like these objects.
I submit that anything that is 1) made for physical violence and 2) acquired for the purpose of physical violence is indeed a tool--a tool of physical violence. This differentiates it from something whose primary purpose is not physical violence. This is why owning a handgun and owning a lawn rake are not the same thing.
quote:I am a peaceful person, I pay taxes and put in forty hours a week and see no reason why a someone should be able to use violence to change my life. So does that make me a horrible person?
I doubt I'm qualified to answer that.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante:
quote:Owning a gun does not express a belief. It is a tool just a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat are tools. Each have their uses, none are an extention of my beliefs.
Wrong.
Owning a shovel, gardening tool, or baseball bat implies that you believe it is okay to dig, garden, or play baseball. Owning a gun for the purpose of potentially shooting someone is absolutely 1) an extension of your belief that you have the right to use deadly violence and 2) an indication that you are willing to exercise that right.
I would never own a gun for the very fact that I accept neither of those propositions.
So according to you, everyone that owns a gun has one for the purpose of potentially shooting someone. Except not everyone owns a gun for that reason. Sure, someone may have one for protection. Another may have one to hunt with. Yet another to participate in shooting competitions. Another may have a gun collection. One may simply have one because it is a family heirloom. I have a rifle that my great grandfather used during World War 2.
Owning a tool does not express a certain belief. I could have a belief that a shovel over the head is a great tool for killing someone, not for digging. I may have the belief that a baseball bat is a tool that is better used to hit ice skaters in the kneee with. I have a large knife that I take with me when I camp. I'm not going to stab anyone, I like to carve wood when I am up in the mountains.
Tools are just that. Tools. Like Achilles said, its how you use those tools that matters.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:So according to you, everyone that owns a gun has one for the purpose of potentially shooting someone.
No. Please read more carefully.
quote:Owning a tool does not express a certain belief. I could have a belief that a shovel over the head is a great tool for killing someone, not for digging.
You "could have" that belief, yes. But if you notice that someone has a shovel in his garage, do you assume that it is for killing people? Or is the overwhelmingly logical choice that it was acquired for digging?
C'mon, guys, I'm not saying that owning a gun of any sort means you're planning to kill somebody. But let's not pretend that a gun is "just a tool" without meaning. Its purpose is to kill. If you own one that's not obviously for another purpose (like an antique), it's a completely reasonable assumption that you have the belief that it's okay (in some set of circumstances) to cause injury to/kill someone.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Could skip a bit of this argument by template like so:
thread.insert(new Argument<GunsDontKillPeople,PeopleKillPeople>());
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Does pacifism dictate that you cannot harm/kill anyone under any circumstance? It seems odd to me that someone could view an act of literal self preservation to be unacceptable. Maybe I misunderstood you.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
In response to Dante.
1. You are in fact making a moral argument, that you are more peaceful than a person who owns a weapon. To be accepting of acts of violence shows a perpensity towards it, and therefore violent yourself. By your statements I am violent, because I own many weapons. My actual reason for owning weapons is to prevent violence to be used upon me, therefore can be construed as an active attempt to stop violence in the first place. I do not accept violence in any form, and if the confidence that I can defend myself and the visual of five inch tanto blade prevents violence, then my life is better for it.
2. Level of effort vs. intent. The average swiss army knife key-chain can be used to sever the carotid artery, but it is diffucult whereas children have been know to successfully discharge firearms. Technically you could bludgeon a person with a hard-back book, but it would take awhile and you would really have to want that person dead, so no need to restrict books. Guns are meant to kill things, we have laws to restrict them to make our society safe and are trying to improve those laws. Handguns are weapons designed to effectively wound or kill a target at medium range, but you need a person to use it (or a monkey trained by the C.I.A. running around Charlton Hestons home.) No one is saying that weapons are not dangerous, simply that owning and operating weaponry does not make a person a danger as well.
3. Fine, you wont make a direct statement against me then let me ask you another question. Have you ever been attacked? (Edit. and I dont mean in a fight, actually attacked) and if you have would defending yourself have made you a less peaceful person?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Could skip a bit of this argument by template like so:
This thread hasnt been about Brewer for sometime anyway, so why move.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Does pacifism dictate that you cannot harm/kill anyone under any circumstance?
There are many types of pacifism, but AFAIK, in the most strict schools, such as some in Buddhism or Gandhi, the answer is yes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: This thread hasnt been about Brewer for sometime anyway, so why move.
Nobody said anything about moving. That would be something like: (new thread()).start() Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: There are many types of pacifism, but AFAIK, in the most strict schools, such as some in Buddhism or Gandhi, the answer is yes.
I certainly have not reached that level of enlightenment. Are you allowed to at least duck? Or could that be interpreted as a form of aggression?
If that's the case then I would probably have to entirely abandon the 5 d's of dodgeball. Those of course being dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.
[ September 08, 2010, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: ScottF ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think ducking would be akin to running away which should certainly be acceptable. As for dodge-ball, I recommend that you track them down yourself to ask a specific question Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
AchillesHeel, I think you are misreading Dante.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: I think one of us has a spam problem.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
ScottF, there's this cute scene in Kenshin (an anime) in which Kenshin allows a glass to hit him in the head, because ducking would have allowed the glass to hit a woman he was sitting with. Contrived, but still cute.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened or how to keep it from happening. I am working through my email list apologizing. Particularly to the ex boyfriends that got the Viagra ad. *wince*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante:
quote:Weapons are simply tools that are designed for a task, owning them makes you no more violent than someone who owns a #2 pencil
I didn't argue that owning a gun makes someone violent. I said that it's an extension of the belief that using violence can be acceptable.
At least in my case, it's an 'extension of the belief' that being prepared to defend yourself and having the tools around to do so is perfectly reasonable.
It's also an extension of the belief that shooting cans is fun.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: No worries. I know someone else that sent me some of those emails recently, on Hotmail too. *shrug*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:At least in my case, it's an 'extension of the belief' that being prepared to defend yourself and having the tools around to do so is perfectly reasonable.
I think you are avoiding the obvious. Owning a gun for self defense necessarily implies you believe there are circumstances which would justify you in killing another human being.
It also necessarily implies that you either have not rationally considered the risks, or you have weighed the risks and consider those risks worth the benefit of gun ownership.
Statistically, it is many times more likely that your gun will be used to kill or injure you, your loved ones or your friends than that you will ever fire it in self defense. Every gun owner I know (and I lived in Montana where that is just about everyone), believes they are much more responsible than the average gun owner so the statistics don't apply to them. That's not rational,
I can see rational arguments for owning a hunting riffle or a shot gun. I can't find any rational reasons an ordinary citizen should own a hand gun or an assault riffle. If you believe that the fun you have shooting cans is worth the risks inherent in owning a gun, you are probably underestimating the risks, greatly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:At least in my case, it's an 'extension of the belief' that being prepared to defend yourself and having the tools around to do so is perfectly reasonable.
I think you are avoiding the obvious. Owning a gun for self defense necessarily implies you believe there are circumstances which would justify you in killing another human being.
Where am I avoiding that? Yes. There are circumstances which would justify me killing another human being, and that's when they're trying to kill me.
HOWEVER
Owning a gun does not in and of itself necessarily imply any such circumstance. You don't have to kill someone in order to defend yourself with a gun; most usage of guns to defend yourself do not result in anyone being shot. Also, you can own a gun for sport which doesn't involve killing people.
quote: If you believe that the fun you have shooting cans is worth the risks inherent in owning a gun, you are probably underestimating the risks, greatly.
I've spit out whole comprehensive essays on here about the subject of gun ownership. You can assume I know a few things about guns and am not underestimating any risks.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened or how to keep it from happening. I am working through my email list apologizing. Particularly to the ex boyfriends that got the Viagra ad. *wince*
Try changing your password. Something (I'm guessing) similar happened to me, and a much more secure password eliminated the problem.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
AchillesHeel,
I think you're reading a lot of things into my posts that I'm not actually saying. But I will answer your question:
quote:3. Fine, you wont make a direct statement against me then let me ask you another question. Have you ever been attacked? (Edit. and I dont mean in a fight, actually attacked) and if you have would defending yourself have made you a less peaceful person?
I'm not sure what you mean by "attacked but not in a fight," but my answer is no, I haven't been. If "defending" myself includes running away, dodging attacks, trying to talk my way out of the situation, blocking blows, etc., then I don't think defending myself would make me a less peaceful person. If it involves inflicting violence on the person attacking me, then I believe it does make me a less peaceful person.
quote:Does pacifism dictate that you cannot harm/kill anyone under any circumstance?
Mucus is right; there is a number of different types of pacifism.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: ETA- from the article you listed it says that the European immigrants took 3-4 generations to get to the level of middle class, including a college degree, so it looks like Mexican immigrants are not that far behind the European immigrant's rate.
But what was America like back then? Was a high school education available to all? Was there discrimination against non-Protestants? Were there welfare benefits? Immigrants today simply have a far greater chance to become upwardly middle by the second generation as evidenced by Asians. One merely hopes that Mexican-Americans will achieve. Asians already do. Why not prefer the latter and restrict the numbers of the former? [/QB]
The Republican party History? It wasn't a democrat that freed the slaves and democrats opposed the civil rights act.
Of course, they love the new form of slavery....government dependence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Republican party History? It wasn't a democrat that freed the slaves and democrats opposed the civil rights act.
Without touching the rest of your post, I just want to point out the colossal irony of this: yes, many Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act, which was pushed through by other Democrats who disagreed with them. This schism was exploited by Republicans, who deliberately recruited the disaffected Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act.
For as long as I have been alive, at least, the Republican Party has been the party opposed to the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, and basically anything with the word "rights" in it that doesn't have to do with firearms or estate taxes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The Republican party History? It wasn't a democrat that freed the slaves and democrats opposed the civil rights act.
OK kids, time for another round of 'Call the BS!' with our recurring star, malanthrop! In this hour's episode, while away from hobnobbing with Jamaican neighbors who don't recognize their skin color and making vast sums of money many, many hours a week more than lazy, smug liberal Democrats, malanthrop has suggested that it was democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Movement, obliquely suggesting that Republicans ought not be tarred with that, Democrats should!
Who'll win this round of spot the BS! Prizes and participation may vary.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Here's a few quotes:
"On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation."
Of course Byrd...the grand poohah of the kkk, wasn't a Republican. Unfortunately, dems elevated this civil right's act filibusterer,....to speaker of the house. Which party was "more for it"...not suprisingly...the party of Lincoln.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mal, did you ignore my post, or did you just fail to understand it?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Dante, I guess its just not something that can be described or learned, it just has to happen to you. By attacked, I mean beaten like a cross-eyed dog by too many people to run away from and with things that you cant block for no reason at all. Overwhelming odds that you can only hope to survive, very few pascifist come out of a life like that and even then most suffer for it. One thing is for certain, I dont think that I would feel remorse for what happens to a violent malicious person who hurts innocent people.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Mal: You've been answered on this point, (Republican and Democrat role reversals from Lincoln until today, as well as Democrats and Republicans in the modern era specifically) before. If you want to disagree with it, that's fine, at least say so, presenting reasoning is even better. But don't just ignore posts like Tom's and then restate this same idea again and again. That isn't discussing in good faith.
You can have controversial unpopular ideas, that's OK. I am not saying you as a general rule do not discuss your ideas, but occasionally when you are talked to a stand still, you disappear, and then reappear stating the same things as if nobody had ever discussed the matter with you. Don't do that please.
Thanks for visiting Hatrack, I hope you won't take my above comments as an invitation to just stop posting.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
AH, I am very glad that I've never had to deal with that sort of situation; I can only imagine how terrifying it would be.
I have been in a few situations that could have turned quite violent, but luckily I (or someone else) was able to difuse them before they reached that level. Of course, that was before I became a pacifist, so I probably still would have considered violence a viable last resort.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Who'll win this round of spot the BS! Prizes and participation may vary.
Like, what do I do? copypaste his entire posting history? what prize is worth that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Who'll win this round of spot the BS! Prizes and participation may vary.
Like, what do I do? copypaste his entire posting history? what prize is worth that?
You know, JB took an unprecedented step here in dealing with mal. You could try not throwing that in his face.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*nod* Personally, I appreciate it. Thanks, JB.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Who'll win this round of spot the BS! Prizes and participation may vary.
Like, what do I do? copypaste his entire posting history? what prize is worth that?
You know, JB took an unprecedented step here in dealing with mal. You could try not throwing that in his face.
QFT
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I didn't even see that, but at the same time, I'm not trying to throw anything in his face. It's a semi-serious response to a joke.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)