Liberal intolerance

[Doc]

"Natural law" has always been a vague and ill-defined concept. There is no firmly agreed upon basis of what natural rights humans have. There is no consistent way to derive natural laws or to test for conformance. Property is a particularly problematic point for natural law because property rights are generally derived from one's ability to employ force to occupy territory and dispossess others, against their will. Property rights require agreement and cooperation or they are meaningless.

You have no idea what you ware talking about. You just discovered Natural Law a few months ago.

The United States was founded on Natural Law. The Founders couldn't stop talking about it.

Natural Law is an abstract guiding principle that is subject to a huge amount of interpretation. It is not universal and it cannot be codified. This is a serious problem for Constitutional literalists. Theories of Natural Law vary considerably and are dependent on subjective beliefs about human nature and morality. No one can devise any "test" to determine whether or not a right is protected by Natural Law, so therefore it's all bullshit.

Try "unalienable Rights" As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Natural rights are Survival of the fittest. Not bullshit, but the way things are without civil society. Though the definition of "fittest" can be pretty fuzzy in general. But it is a moment to moment kind of thing.

[Zack Morris]

Natural rights are Survival of the fittest. Not bullshit, but the way things are without civil society. Though the definition of "fittest" can be pretty fuzzy in general. But it is a moment to moment kind of thing.

No. You are confusing the law of nature (specifically, the law of the jungle) with natural law.

Survival of the fittest is not a right, it is a self-evident observation. Natural law is not self-evident. Natural law treads very close to begging the question. It's a fancy way of saying "we have these rights just because." For millennia, philosophers exploring questions of rights and morality ultimately all reached a dead end beyond which no explanation for why some things simply feel correct, or seem to be relatively widely accepted (to a degree). Rather than admitting the obvious (and disturbing) fact that everything is relative and that our moral principles are internally inconsistent and simply the result of biological adaptations, they instead proposed some hidden variable that makes everything work: a universal code governing the nature of man. It's bullshit, basically. No one wants to admit there isn't an answer or that they don't know it. Better to propose some profound-sounding bullshit.

Try "unalienable Rights" As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Inalienable rights to do to our own bodies as we please, to freely live off the land that belongs to no one, to gay-marry each other, and so forth? Those rights? Or are you talking about limited suffrage, the right to count black people as 3/5ths of a human being, the right to own said 3/5th-humans, the right to claim arbitrary amounts of land as one's own until the end of time? I can never be too sure what you people mean when you say these things.

[Doc]

Natural rights are Survival of the fittest. Not bullshit, but the way things are without civil society. Though the definition of "fittest" can be pretty fuzzy in general. But it is a moment to moment kind of thing.

No. You are confusing the law of nature (specifically, the law of the jungle) with natural law.

Survival of the fittest is not a right, it is a self-evident observation. Natural law is not self-evident. Natural law treads very close to begging the question. It's a fancy way of saying "we have these rights just because." For millennia, philosophers exploring questions of rights and morality ultimately all reached a dead end beyond which no explanation for why some things simply feel correct, or seem to be relatively widely accepted (to a degree). Rather than admitting the obvious (and disturbing) fact that everything is relative and that our moral principles are internally inconsistent and simply the result of biological adaptations, they instead proposed some hidden variable that makes everything work: a universal code governing the nature of man. It's bullshit, basically. No one wants to admit there isn't an answer or that they don't know it. Better to propose some profound-sounding bullshit.

Try "unalienable Rights" As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Inalienable rights to do to our own bodies as we please, to freely live off the land that belongs to no one, to gay-marry each other, and so forth? Those rights? Or are you talking about limited suffrage, the right to count black people as 3/5ths of a human being, the right to own said 3/5th-humans, the right to claim arbitrary amounts of land as one's own until the end of time? I can never be too sure what you people mean when you say these things.

Just that natural law as I see it is natural. IE Derived from nature. Unalienable rights being from enlightened civilization. Just saying...

[Zack Morris]

Just that natural law as I see it is natural. IE Derived from nature. Unalienable rights being from enlightened civilization. Just saying...

What's natural about it? How can we test for conformance with natural law? Rights are supposed to be derived from natural law according to Mr. Perfect and some Enlightenment political thinkers. But the problem is that those thinkers all shared similar cultural biases, which are not applicable today (and weren't universally applicable even in their own time). What constitutes an "enlightened" civilization? There are broad differences between the United States, Russia, and China today; you might say that the latter two are not "enlightened" but it's hard to argue that they are less enlightened than, say, early 19th century America.

It's relatively easy to find consensus on rights to life and pursuit of happiness but beyond that -- Property? The role of the state (which obviously must exist in any natural law framework)? Marriage? -- good luck!

Therefore, citing "natural law" as if it provides some obvious resolution to the matter is totally invalid. By the powers vested in me by nature, I unilaterally declare that, henceforth, Mr. Perfect's appeals to natural law shall be read as "I've lost this argument."

[Mr. Perfect]

Natural Law is an abstract guiding principle that is subject to a huge amount of interpretation.

How would you know anything about it, you just discovered it recently and haven't read anything about it. IIRC I gave you a reading list, I suggest that you spend a few years on that, then get back to us and maybe you can be included in the conversation.

It is not universal and it cannot be codified.

Ermm it was codified into the greatest and most universal political document in history, the United States Constitution. Where have your beliegs been codified, so that we can do a comparison.

Back to the drawing board for you Zack Morris.

This is a serious problem for Constitutional literalists.

Constitutional literalists have no problems at all because that Natural Law document was designed to be taken literally.

With a view to this last object, I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. -James Madison

A lot more where that came from. Back to the drawing board for you Zack Morris.

Theories of Natural Law vary considerably and are dependent on subjective beliefs about human nature and morality. No one can devise any "test" to determine whether or not a right is protected by Natural Law, so therefore it's all bullshit.

If BS produces the greatest political document and nation in the history of the world and kicks the @$$ of whatever abstractions you believe in that have produced nothing, let alone anything we can compare to the Natural Law Constitution then I will take BS all the live long day. I believe your abstract subjective philosophies in another thread result in eugenic depopulation programs for the impoverished and disadvantaged, so obviously we will reject that evil.

You on the other hand, back to the drawing board and well past time to apologize for your lies and your false charges.

[Doc]

Just that natural law as I see it is natural. IE Derived from nature. Unalienable rights being from enlightened civilization. Just saying...

What's natural about it? How can we test for conformance with natural law? Rights are supposed to be derived from natural law according to Mr. Perfect and some Enlightenment political thinkers. But the problem is that those thinkers all shared similar cultural biases, which are not applicable today (and weren't universally applicable even in their own time). What constitutes an "enlightened" civilization? There are broad differences between the United States, Russia, and China today; you might say that the latter two are not "enlightened" but it's hard to argue that they are less enlightened than, say, early 19th century America.

It's relatively easy to find consensus on rights to life and pursuit of happiness but beyond that -- Property? The role of the state (which obviously must exist in any natural law framework)? Marriage? -- good luck!

Therefore, citing "natural law" as if it provides some obvious resolution to the matter is totally invalid. By the powers vested in me by nature, I unilaterally declare that, henceforth, Mr. Perfect's appeals to natural law shall be read as "I've lost this argument."

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness would seem to cover anything you wanted it to cover. Life being absolute. Liberty and pursuit of happiness being quite fuzzy terms.

I would just remind you that the unalienable rights thing comes from the same folks who spoke of natural law. And in France the unalienable rights are Life Liberty and property. The French seemed to have no problem agreeing on that. I believe Jefferson said the government must have the consent of the governed. What could be more natural than that?

IE Natural law is what can be agreed on by the governed. There is no mystery in this...

[Zack Morris]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness would seem to cover anything you wanted it to cover. Life being absolute. Liberty and pursuit of happiness being quite fuzzy terms.

Life is absolute? Really? What about the life of criminals? What about the unborn?

I would just remind you that the unalienable rights thing comes from the same folks who spoke of natural law. And in France the unalienable rights are Life Liberty and property. The French seemed to have no problem agreeing on that. I believe Jefferson said the government must have the consent of the governed. What could be more natural than that?

The French are happily socialist and see no conflict between that and their fundamental rights. So there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement here on what these rights entail.

IE Natural law is what can be agreed on by the governed. There is no mystery in this...

There has been constant disagreement over what our fundamental rights. I guess that means they are not so "natural" after all.

[Doc]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness would seem to cover anything you wanted it to cover. Life being absolute. Liberty and pursuit of happiness being quite fuzzy terms.

Life is absolute? Really? What about the life of criminals? What about the unborn?

I a not against the death penalty because there are no take backs. If I were a second born child in China I would be very glad my parents broke the law.

I would just remind you that the unalienable rights thing comes from the same folks who spoke of natural law. And in France the unalienable rights are Life Liberty and property. The French seemed to have no problem agreeing on that. I believe Jefferson said the government must have the consent of the governed. What could be more natural than that?

The French are happily socialist and see no conflict between that and their fundamental rights. So there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement here on what these rights entail.[/quote]

Did I say otherwise?

IE Natural law is what can be agreed on by the governed. There is no mystery in this...

There has been constant disagreement over what our fundamental rights. I guess that means they are not so "natural" after all.[/quote]

Natural right to self determination. IE LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS As I said nothing mysterious about that at all.

[Zack Morris]

Zack Morris, all of this is covered in the literature, the abundant literature concerning Natural Law, you would waste less of the Universe's energy doing your due diligence and discussing things from knowledge, instead of ignorance, as you do now. I believe you were provided with a reading list.

No, in fact it is not covered. That's why there is not, never has been, and probably never will be consensus on these matters.

[Zack Morris]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness would seem to cover anything you wanted it to cover. Life being absolute. Liberty and pursuit of happiness being quite fuzzy terms.

Life is absolute? Really? What about the life of criminals? What about the unborn?

I a not against the death penalty because there are no take backs. If I were a second born child in China I would be very glad my parents broke the law.

The one-child policy was enacted for the common good, the promotion of which is fundamental to Western theories of natural law. Therefore, the state is within its rights to limit births under natural law, especially when done so under a relatively flexible policy, like China's, which allows fees to be paid for the right to bear more children.

I would just remind you that the unalienable rights thing comes from the same folks who spoke of natural law. And in France the unalienable rights are Life Liberty and property. The French seemed to have no problem agreeing on that. I believe Jefferson said the government must have the consent of the governed. What could be more natural than that?

The French are happily socialist and see no conflict between that and their fundamental rights. So there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement here on what these rights entail.

Did I say otherwise?

I assumed you would think that socialism violates natural law. But I guess you don't?

Natural right to self determination. IE LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS As I said nothing mysterious about that at all.

It's incredibly mysterious! What degree of self determination are you permitted to have? It is clearly not unlimited. So where are the boundaries? Natural law says nothing about that. Natural law is little more than "humans by their nature tend to agree on some basic way to frame the discussion of what is right and wrong", but not on the particulars, and the particulars are what matter in structuring a political system and a society.

[Doc]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness would seem to cover anything you wanted it to cover. Life being absolute. Liberty and pursuit of happiness being quite fuzzy terms.

Life is absolute? Really? What about the life of criminals? What about the unborn?

I a not against the death penalty because there are no take backs. If I were a second born child in China I would be very glad my parents broke the law.

The one-child policy was enacted for the common good, the promotion of which is fundamental to Western theories of natural law. Therefore, the state is within its rights to limit births under natural law, especially when done so under a relatively flexible policy, like China's, which allows fees to be paid for the right to bear more children.

Or government officials to ignore the law and have two or more children Or the government sterilizing women after the forced abortion for getting pregnant a second time. A regular war on women won't you say???

I would just remind you that the unalienable rights thing comes from the same folks who spoke of natural law. And in France the unalienable rights are Life Liberty and property. The French seemed to have no problem agreeing on that. I believe Jefferson said the government must have the consent of the governed. What could be more natural than that?

The French are happily socialist and see no conflict between that and their fundamental rights. So there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement here on what these rights entail.

Did I say otherwise?

I assumed you would think that socialism violates natural law. But I guess you don't?

Napolean was a socialist?

Natural right to self determination. IE LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS As I said nothing mysterious about that at all.

It's incredibly mysterious! What degree of self determination are you permitted to have?

Whatever the people consent too.

It is clearly not unlimited. So where are the boundaries? Natural law says nothing about that. Natural law is little more than "humans by their nature tend to agree on some basic way to frame the discussion of what is right and wrong", but not on the particulars, and the particulars are what matter in structuring a political system and a society.

I think you are not really thinking this through Zack. Societies are stabilized but institutions Preferably institutions that are effective and just. OR do you prefer un-just institutions?

[Doc]

What is the obamaslogan "DO nothing congress" really about?

In 2012 the republicans were about to pass immigration reform. SO Obama made an executive order allowing illegal aliens to stay in the US. those allowed to stay can submit for American citizenship. I even know one couple that has already received their US citizenship. I would also add that they are hard working people with higher educations. That is not the issue here.

Then look at the IRS. Groups opposed to Obama were denied tax exempt status at a 100% rate if their name contained Tea party Patriot or 912. Their free speech, the speech that others were afforded were abridge just for Obama and the left's opponents. In effect Obama is deciding for himself who is a real American and who is not.

So could someone that is a die hard supporter of Obama explain to me the difference between Obama and the democrats of the old south? Or Hitler and the Jews?

[Mr. Perfect]

You'll never get a Democrat obama supporter to explain anything anymore, they are in the bunker screaming into closets.

Shades of 2006.

[Doc]

You'll never get a Democrat obama supporter to explain anything anymore, they are in the bunker screaming into closets.

Shades of 2006.

I have been seeing what appears to be an army of ultra extreme left plastering hate against conservatives all over internet forums. Either they are turning into the walking dead or they are organized. Just too many of the same talking points posted over and over in quick proximity. Posts like "The stupid ignorant violent racist Teabaggers are a hate group"

So more like shades of the 1930s:

http://holocaustcenterpgh.org/page.aspx?ID=148357
Dehumanization of the Jews

How the Nazis spread propaganda and its effect on Jews
In the 1930's, Hitler and his Nazi regime led a campaign of propaganda spreading lies about the Jews. As the "Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda" of the Nazi party, Josef Goebbels created a negative image of the Jewish people, blaming them for the economic and social problems of Germany and the world. The propaganda was intended to dehumanize the Jews by naming them an “inferior race,” to create widespread anti-Semitism and lay the groundwork for the elimination of the rights and freedoms of the Jews. The Nazis preached that Jews must be excluded from society, and used schools, the media and popular art forms such as films, posters and dramas to teach and project a distorted image of the Jews.

The effects of the propaganda, combined with the anti-Semitic feelings that already existed in Europe, resulted in widespread ridicule, violence, humiliation, and persecution of Jews. Driving them into poverty and despair, Nazi propaganda and hatred against the Jews set the stage for mass genocide.

And Obama claiming he basically has the right to say who can be a US citizen by executive order/ How far is that from claiming he has the right to take away citizenship from however he wants?

Anti-Semitic Laws Enacted by the Nazis
Initially, the Nazis encouraged Germans to boycott Jewish businesses. The passing of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 formally established who was a German versus who was a Jew under “the Reich Citizenship Law,” and enforced the persecution of Jews. These laws prevented Christians from marrying Jews and stripped Jews of their civil rights, removed them from jobs, and restricted their daily lives, among other things.

Passed on September 15, October 18, and November 15 of 1935, the Nuremberg Laws increased the isolation of the Jews in deliberate, gradual steps. At first, only Jews in certain professions were affected. Jewish doctors and lawyers could only serve other Jews. Teachers and professors were forced out of their positions. Shop owners had to sell their businesses to Aryans for a fraction of their worth. As time passed, Jews were eventually excluded from society altogether.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects
experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that
police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of
insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties
when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History
bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty
extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the
end.

Justice Felix Frankfurter 1

[Zack Morris]

Or government officials to ignore the law and have two or more children Or the government sterilizing women after the forced abortion for getting pregnant a second time. A regular war on women won't you say???

I don't know, man. Chinese women seem to be destined for a much brighter future than American women. From my firsthand experience, I can tell you it looks even better for Chinese women in technical careers -- right here in the USA. Among girls pulling down $100K-$300K within their first few years of graduate school, a disproportionate number of them are Chinese. On my team, all of them are.

Maybe we could learn a thing or two from China and liberate our own women from oppression.

[Doc]

Or government officials to ignore the law and have two or more children Or the government sterilizing women after the forced abortion for getting pregnant a second time. A regular war on women won't you say???

I don't know, man. Chinese women seem to be destined for a much brighter future than American women. From my firsthand experience, I can tell you it looks even better for Chinese women in technical careers -- right here in the USA. Among girls pulling down $100K-$300K within their first few years of graduate school, a disproportionate number of them are Chinese. On my team, all of them are.

Maybe we could learn a thing or two from China and liberate our own women from oppression.

I used to know a Chinese Chinese woman. She was one of the nicest and self contained people I ever meant in my life. She was a third child. The only reason she existed is that her father was one of the top petroleum engineers in China. Basically he had enough clot to pull off paying a woman other than his wife to claim she was the mother. When she was really young she told me she had to take care of herself during the day, Even cooked rice for herself. IF she really got into trouble she could call her father whose office was a few blocks away. But generally she was on her own.

I know the type you are talking about. In one of my old jobs there were two female Chinese software engineers and a Vietnamese hardware software guy. They were all first rate, and paid quite well. I think that has more to do with the Asian attitudes about study than anything else.

[Zack Morris]

I used to know a Chinese Chinese woman. She was one of the nicest and self contained people I ever meant in my life. She was a third child. The only reason she existed is that her father was one of the top petroleum engineers in China. Basically he had enough clot to pull off paying a woman other than his wife to claim she was the mother. When she was really young she told me she had to take care of herself during the day, Even cooked rice for herself. IF she really got into trouble she could call her father whose office was a few blocks away. But generally she was on her own.

Most of the Chinese I know are not from privileged backgrounds. And if this girl cooked rice for herself, neither was she.

I know the type you are talking about. In one of my old jobs there were two female Chinese software engineers and a Vietnamese hardware software guy. They were all first rate, and paid quite well. I think that has more to do with the Asian attitudes about study than anything else.

If you go to Asia, you will find that there are plenty of underachievers and lazy people. But you'll also find that women are beginning to thrive and are beginning to defy the patriarchy in ways once thought impossible. A patriarchy that religious conservatives here still pine for.

Americans have a lot of answering to do for why women -- especially those in states with Republican governors and legislatures -- are faring so poorly.

[Doc]

I used to know a Chinese Chinese woman. She was one of the nicest and self contained people I ever meant in my life. She was a third child. The only reason she existed is that her father was one of the top petroleum engineers in China. Basically he had enough clot to pull off paying a woman other than his wife to claim she was the mother. When she was really young she told me she had to take care of herself during the day, Even cooked rice for herself. IF she really got into trouble she could call her father whose office was a few blocks away. But generally she was on her own.

Most of the Chinese I know are not from privileged backgrounds. And if this girl cooked rice for herself, neither was she.

How judgmental of you. Like you actually know ..

I know the type you are talking about. In one of my old jobs there were two female Chinese software engineers and a Vietnamese hardware software guy. They were all first rate, and paid quite well. I think that has more to do with the Asian attitudes about study than anything else.

If you go to Asia, you will find that there are plenty of underachievers and lazy people. But you'll also find that women are beginning to thrive and are beginning to defy the patriarchy in ways once thought impossible. A patriarchy that religious conservatives here still pine for.

Americans have a lot of answering to do for why women -- especially those in states with Republican governors and legislatures -- are faring so poorly.

What do you mean by "faring so poorly" specifically?

[Doc]

White Wing Wiberals

Do Democrats Need a Bubba Strategy?

What a silly question. The democrats already have a bubba strategy.

Insult them. Demean them at every chance. Lie to them. Tell them "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it !!"Then take away their health insurance. Sic the IRS on them. Keep them unemployed. Take away their guns. Accuse them of racism over and over and over Declare that they are conducting a war on women. Tell their kids that when daddy went to war he was a war criminal. Tell them how stupid and uneducated they are. Put them on secret VA death lists. Send them in harms way, then don't back them up.Use the NSA to spy on them. Tell them they aren't real Americans, Christians,. or honest. Act smug arrogant and condescending to them etc etc etc

Yeah that's the ticket !!! The Democrats don't need the black vote with their 16% unemployment. They don't need the illegal alien vote !! They just need the bubba vote, and the smug, arrogant, condescending, hate spewing, white wing wiberal vote !!!

Do Democrats Need a Bubba Strategy?

The party shouldn’t give up on NASCAR voters, says Dave “Mudcat” Saunders.

By MASON ADAMS

July 08, 2014


On a balmy summer afternoon, Dave “Mudcat” Saunders sits in the shade of his porch in Roanoke, Va., with a tall cup of iced tea, a highlighter and a copy of I Heard My Country Calling. That’s the new book by former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, a Reagan Democrat whose 2006 upset over one-time GOP star George Allen in Virginia represents the last time Mudcat could claim victory for his “Bubba Strategy.”

Since fallen into disuse, the Bubba Strategy might be the only proven way of getting rural-minded residents of very red states or regions to vote Democratic. It was first road-tested in the state in 2001, when in his landmark run for Virginia governor, Democrat Mark Warner sponsored a truck operated by southwest Virginia’s Wood Brothers Racing team in a NASCAR race, appeared with bluegrass musician Ralph Stanley and slathered the deeply working-class region in “Sportsmen for Warner” signs signaling his support by and for gun owners. Similar tactics were subsequently used by Blue Dog Democrats and other candidates who sought to win rural areas.

Little more than a decade later, the Bubba Strategy almost feels quaint. Shifting demographics have transformed Virginia into a blue-leaning swing state over the last two presidential election cycles. With fresh numbers of Democratic voters, candidates now believe they only need to get voters to turn out rather than persuade people in red districts. Hence freshman Sen. Tim Kaine, in his successful 2012 race, felt free to ignore Bubba; instead Kaine only had to run up huge margins in the urban crescent around Washington, D.C., without worrying as much about the parts west of Richmond. For similar reasons, President Obama paid even less heed to the rural parts of the state in 2012 than he did in the 2008 campaign.

Saunders, nonetheless, insists that finding a way to identify with the “bubbas”—Southern slang for people of limited means and less education—is not only useful but essential to the Democratic Party’s future throughout the South and rural areas of the country. If the party wants to hold the Senate this year, let alone retake the House of Representatives any time soon, it must travel again down many a country road, at least philosophically, Saunders says.

Dave "Mudcat" Saunders

That’s especially true because the issue of income inequality is emerging as a fundamental Democratic talking point for both 2014 and 2016. Candidates need an effective way to communicate their empathy for the downtrodden without sounding condescending or disingenuous about it—as Hillary Clinton recently found when she made her much-mocked comment about being “dead broke” upon leaving the White House as first lady. “The greatest problem in America is the disintegration of the middle class,” Saunders says, and “unless you’re super-rich, you probably feel like you’re getting screwed. That feeling transcends geography.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 08684.html

[monster_gardener]

I used to know a Chinese Chinese woman. She was one of the nicest and self contained people I ever meant in my life. She was a third child. The only reason she existed is that her father was one of the top petroleum engineers in China. Basically he had enough clot to pull off paying a woman other than his wife to claim she was the mother. When she was really young she told me she had to take care of herself during the day, Even cooked rice for herself. IF she really got into trouble she could call her father whose office was a few blocks away. But generally she was on her own.

Most of the Chinese I know are not from privileged backgrounds. And if this girl cooked rice for herself, neither was she.

I know the type you are talking about. In one of my old jobs there were two female Chinese software engineers and a Vietnamese hardware software guy. They were all first rate, and paid quite well. I think that has more to do with the Asian attitudes about study than anything else.

If you go to Asia, you will find that there are plenty of underachievers and lazy people. But you'll also find that women are beginning to thrive and are beginning to defy the patriarchy in ways once thought impossible. A patriarchy that religious conservatives here still pine for.

Americans have a lot of answering to do for why women -- especially those in states with Republican governors and legislatures -- are faring so poorly.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Zack.

AIUI voluntary immigrants tend to be self selected to be more energetic and perhaps more intelligent than many of those who stay behind.....

This is for both good and ill.....

Entrepreneurs and people seeking freedom....... Von Steuben, Kosciusko, Gallatin, Carl Schurz, Teslas & Einsteins.....

Also invaders, raiders, conquistadors, drug & other smugglers and criminals..... Reconquista types, Mafia members like Lucky Luciano, Chechen Terrorists, Nacrotraficantes, MaraSalvatruchas....

Need try to make sure the better ones get in and the bad ones are kept out or are imprisoned &/or sent back as soon as possible...

[Doc]

More on White Wing Wiberals

Income inequality inconsistent with Democratic legacy
Joshua Sandman

By Joshua H. Sandman

Posted: 04/07/14, 3:15 PM EDT | Updated: on 04/07/2014
4 Comments

The income disparity between rich and poor that the U. S. is experiencing today is essentially a political phenomenon.

The ideological convictions of the Republican right, the post-material agenda of the Democratic left and a climate of dysfunctional partisan conflict has had a negative impact on the economic well-being of middle-, working- and low-income class Americans and has fostered income inequality.

The Democratic Party, the presumed advocate of the middle and working classes, became a main culprit of income inequality. A post-material liberalism emerged within the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It shifted liberalism from the economic material well-being, needs and concerns of the middle and working classes to the interests of a well educated and affluent class of liberals.

The newly emerged liberal activists promoted an agenda that was anti-war and stressed cultural and social issues (such as environmentalism, abortion and gun control). They rejected the viability of the industrial economy and advocated a new post-industrial knowledge, information technology and financial services economic model.

This helped create a wealthy elite class, an economically diminished professional segment, a large lower class of poorly paid (but government subsidized) service workers and a new underclass of the low income and poor mainly dependent on government support.

This differs dramatically from the “bread and butter” economic focus of the traditional Democratic Party — a party that gave us such Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs as Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps.

The new liberals, less concerned with the plight of the working class, allowed the ideological convictions of the conservative Republican right to prevail. Working-class urban Democrats became disillusioned and angry as the new liberals ignored their concerns on economic, social and cultural issues.

President Reagan captured these abandoned and confounded working class Democrats (aptly called the Reagan Democrats). He also began to discredit and diminish the union movement and the Great Society programs that had so successfully uplifted the middle and working classes.

Both the Clinton and Obama administrations embraced policies more in line with a post-industrial and European Social Democracy view. Many Americans responded with dismay and supported a conservative, populist outlook. This has led to Republican domination of the House of Representatives, the turn of Republican Party to the right and the emergence of the tea party. The net result has been policies antithetical to income equality (and helpful to the 1 percent). The resulting political bickering creates disillusion and confusion and allows conservative politicians to advance an agenda that is hostile to government spending, fearful of deficits and stresses the need for austerity to promote business confidence — policies that foster economic hardship and income inequality.

Most Americans do not clearly understand or wish to support the policies pursued by affluent European Democracies and advocated by President Obama. Such policies, including universal health care, many believe, are inconsistent with basic American values of freedom of choice and self-reliance.

Other Western democracies have not allowed technological changes and globalization to produce the glaring disparities in economic fortunes experienced by American workers. Corrective governmental action was used to make sure that the economic benefits from technology and global trade were more fairly and widely distributed throughout the population. Redistributive policies and other European common practices are perceived to contradict core American political and cultural values.

The American people want well-paying jobs with benefits — not government mandated health insurance, food stamps, Section 8 housing, Medicaid and a low wage economy. To create income equality, the Democratic Party has to be resourceful, redirect its efforts to fight for the working-class citizens and, as President Johnson did when he proposed the Great Society 50 years ago, focus on the bread and butter concerns and values of middle- and working-class Americans.

http://www.nhregister.com/opinion/20140 ... tic-legacy

Hat tip to Book Lady

[Zack Morris]

AIUI voluntary immigrants tend to be self selected to be more energetic and perhaps more intelligent than many of those who stay behind.....

I wasn't just talking about immigrants. I linked to an article pointing out the success of China's women in reaching the upper echelons of business society in China.

[Zack Morris]

The Democratic Party, the presumed advocate of the middle and working classes, became a main culprit of income inequality. A post-material liberalism emerged within the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It shifted liberalism from the economic material well-being, needs and concerns of the middle and working classes to the interests of a well educated and affluent class of liberals.

The newly emerged liberal activists promoted an agenda that was anti-war and stressed cultural and social issues (such as environmentalism, abortion and gun control). They rejected the viability of the industrial economy and advocated a new post-industrial knowledge, information technology and financial services economic model.[/b]

Why is there no supporting evidence for this bizarre statement? Maybe because it's absurd on its face. The anti-war movement of the 60's and 70's has nothing to do with economic policy. Furthermore, the "post-industrial" economy didn't become a hot topic until the 90's and the information revolution that wiped out many of America's remaining jobs didn't take off until the 80's and 90's. From the 1970's until now, Republicans have been in control for proportionally far more time than Democrats. So what does any of this have to do with liberals vs. conservatives?

The rest of the article is a confused call for more protectionism and big government. I guess you didn't read that far.

[Doc]

The Democratic Party, the presumed advocate of the middle and working classes, became a main culprit of income inequality. A post-material liberalism emerged within the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It shifted liberalism from the economic material well-being, needs and concerns of the middle and working classes to the interests of a well educated and affluent class of liberals.

The newly emerged liberal activists promoted an agenda that was anti-war and stressed cultural and social issues (such as environmentalism, abortion and gun control). They rejected the viability of the industrial economy and advocated a new post-industrial knowledge, information technology and financial services economic model.[/b]

Why is there no supporting evidence for this bizarre statement? Maybe because it's absurd on its face. The anti-war movement of the 60's and 70's has nothing to do with economic policy. Furthermore, the "post-industrial" economy didn't become a hot topic until the 90's and the information revolution that wiped out many of America's remaining jobs didn't take off until the 80's and 90's. From the 1970's until now, Republicans have been in control for proportionally far more time than Democrats. So what does any of this have to do with liberals vs. conservatives?

The rest of the article is a confused call for more protectionism and big government. I guess you didn't read that far.

Perhaps tax the disruptive techies at 110% of income...Need I add more?

Oh I suppose I should add something about this:

The rest of the article is a confused call for more protectionism and big government.

The flag Steve jobs flew over apple Inc headquarters


Or as Bill Gates said to Stave Jobs

I GOT THE LOOT STEVE !!! I GOT THE LOOT!!

Disruptive tech has little to do with anything but bamboozling people with new tech.

[Zack Morris]

Yes, you need to add a lot more. Because that sounds like illogical nonsense. Maybe you should first start with a more modest proposal: step aside and let techies run the nation.