Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-04-2010, 09:46 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-04-2010, 10:03 PM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Police suspicious people! I also recommend policing teenagers who don't fit in. People who grow pot. The onanists.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-04-2010, 10:53 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmium View Post
Police suspicious people! I also recommend policing teenagers who don't fit in. People who grow pot. The onanists.
And really smart guys blogging about sciencey stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-04-2010, 10:16 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Hmmm...this isn't exactly what I was thinking of when I was asking for a deepwater horizon incident diavlog.

The coverage of this (everywhere) has just been awful. There are about a dozen basic facts I can think of off of the top of my head that would be nice to know, that no one is bothering to report on.How is it that I have read like a dozen news stories about this, and I don't even know what type of oil is being spilled? Ugh.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 05-04-2010 at 10:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-04-2010, 10:47 PM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
How is it that I have read like a dozen news stories about this, and I don't even know what type of oil is being spilled? Ugh.
That detail is being saved for when the crude starts ripping through the marshland. Then, the "Oil Institute" will tell viewers the verdict is "unclear", or that petroleum, like olive oil, is really good for fresh water fauna and flora.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-04-2010, 11:00 PM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
That detail is being saved for when the crude starts ripping through the marshland. Then, the "Oil Institute" will tell viewers the verdict is "unclear", or that petroleum, like olive oil, is really good for fresh water fauna and flora.
Or that, as a leading conservative spokesperson has already helpfully pointed out, oil is as natural a substance as water.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-04-2010, 11:01 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by listener View Post
Or, as a leading conservative spokesperson has already helpfully pointed out, oil is as natural a substance as water.
Or rattlesnake venom.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-05-2010, 12:33 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
How is it that I have read like a dozen news stories about this, and I don't even know what type of oil is being spilled? Ugh.
Rachel Maddow examined this question tonight.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-05-2010, 02:51 AM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Rachel Maddow examined this question tonight.
And with her characteristic thoroughness and attention to detail.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon

Last edited by listener; 05-05-2010 at 02:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-04-2010, 10:46 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default An excellent Diavlog

Good to see a respectful, exchange of ideas on immigration and security outside of the usual cross-fire format.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-10-2010, 02:03 PM
eurolaskan eurolaskan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3
Default Re: An excellent Diavlog

I agree. When the vloggers aren't screaming at each other, it's a much more constructive discussion. And more worth listening to.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-04-2010, 10:51 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

What mad genius dreamt up this pairing? I stand in awe. Now, to watch.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-05-2010, 12:41 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
What mad genius dreamt up this pairing? I stand in awe. Now, to watch.
I agree that the pairing had potential, but the DV was a letdown. I never thought I'd say this but: too little Ann. Most of the 'vlog was a basically an interview of Pinkerton. Where was Althouse? Meh.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-05-2010, 08:08 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

I agree about AA. Invoking JFK was deft.

But, what happened to Pinkerton's brain during that conspiracy rant about the oil spill?! Add that to the list when he's institutionalized.

President Obama is justly criticized for his support for drilling. I take no joy in this incident, or feel relief that Schwarzenegger revoked his support for drilling in Californian waters. But, this incident is a corporate mistake, not a natural disaster. Disaster relief is a government bailiwick. BP is a villain - and seemingly incompetent - and presidents aren't in the job, to bail out criminals. I thought we cleared that up with TARP! So, I ask Pinkerton, is government supposed to wrack its brain devising strategies for future corporate incompetence and villainy? Is the administration just supposed to wait for the next screw-up? Or, perhaps, should it be pro-active and stop probable mistakes waiting to happen, like drilling in waters where other industries mine sea fauna and guaranteeing arcane financial instruments?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-05-2010, 12:01 AM
ImmRefDotCom ImmRefDotCom is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default They already have a consensus

Pinkerton says that the feds will get serious when we get a consensus, which he thinks we're moving towards. Not gonna happen.

Most Americans want something to be done about illegal immigration. But, the entire establishment is on the other side: they want the power that mass immigration brings them, together with the money. Plus, it dilutes the power of mainstream America. They aren't going to change their minds. They might change their tactics, but they're still going to keep pushing what they've been pushing.

The way to strike back is for mainstream America to discredit those visible elites who promote mass immigration, such as bloggingheads' own Shikha Dalmia or those who've lied about the Arizona law (a partial list at the link). I don't mean that in the convivial bloggingheads way: I mean that in the "make unemployable" way. The problem is finding anyone else willing to help.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-05-2010, 12:12 AM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmRefDotCom View Post
...it dilutes the power of mainstream America.
No further comment necessary.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-05-2010, 02:24 AM
ImmRefDotCom ImmRefDotCom is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default Re: They already have a consensus

In other words, you have no argument why you think that's wrong. Maybe someone else can see if they can come up with one.

In the meantime, I suggest reading this. The author is a former aide to VicenteFox and he describes the interesting thoughts of our friends in Congress he ran into.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-05-2010, 02:36 AM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmRefDotCom View Post
In other words, you have no argument why you think that's wrong. Maybe someone else can see if they can come up with one.

In the meantime, I suggest reading this. The author is a former aide to VicenteFox and he describes the interesting thoughts of our friends in Congress he ran into.
It is the idea of, and the presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America," as well as the stated fear of the dilution of its power, that I thought required no further comment.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon

Last edited by listener; 05-05-2010 at 03:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-05-2010, 09:55 AM
Stapler Malone Stapler Malone is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 213
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by listener View Post
It is the idea of, and the presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America," as well as the stated fear of the dilution of its power, that I thought required no further comment.
"Real Murkins ain't brown"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-05-2010, 03:39 PM
ImmRefDotCom ImmRefDotCom is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default A "liberal" Two-fer!

Not only are you bigoted against those who speak a certain way, but you think "mainstream America" is a racial signifier. Did you really mean to say that no non-whites are mainstream?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-05-2010, 09:51 PM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by listener View Post
It is the idea of, and the presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America," as well as the stated fear of the dilution of its power, that I thought required no further comment.
Listener, I don't think you're listening. You're making a presumption about what his presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America" and the 'dilution of its power'. Can you say, 'epistemic closure'?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-05-2010, 11:24 PM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy View Post
Listener, I don't think you're listening. You're making a presumption about what his presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America" and the 'dilution of its power'. Can you say, 'epistemic closure'?
Grits, having read your comment, I re-read the original post that I commented on, and my response to it to see if I had missed something. You may have a point; perhaps I was too blithely dismissive in my comment. However, I was not questioning so much the specifics of what constitutes "mainstream America" as much as questioning whether such an entity exists at all. The phrase seems so vague to me as to be empty of any real meaning. It smacks to me of hand-waving.

I don't have a strong opinion either way about what to do re: illegal immigration. It seems like a very thorny problem to which there are no simple solutions. I don't pretend to know enough to know what solutions might be the best ones. But to assert that illegal immigration "dilutes the power" of some entity called "mainstream America" just doesn't make any sense to me. At the very least, it is too ambiguous.

And having read the original post over again, I noticed that I had missed the violation of the Lambchop rule in the first sentence of the post's second paragraph. In other words, more hand-waving.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon

Last edited by listener; 05-05-2010 at 11:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-06-2010, 01:07 AM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by listener View Post
Grits, having read your comment, I re-read the original post that I commented on, and my response to it to see if I had missed something. You may have a point; perhaps I was too blithely dismissive in my comment. However, I was not questioning so much the specifics of what constitutes "mainstream America" as much as questioning whether such an entity exists at all. The phrase seems so vague to me as to be empty of any real meaning. It smacks to me of hand-waving.

I don't have a strong opinion either way about what to do re: illegal immigration. It seems like a very thorny problem to which there are no simple solutions. I don't pretend to know enough to know what solutions might be the best ones. But to assert that illegal immigration "dilutes the power" of some entity called "mainstream America" just doesn't make any sense to me. At the very least, it is too ambiguous.

And having read the original post over again, I noticed that I had missed the violation of the Lambchop rule in the first sentence of the post's second paragraph. In other words, more hand-waving.

To your point about the term "mainstream America", I agree it's an obscure concept and can carry nativistic overtones depending on how its used. But the main thrust of Dotcom's post was right on point, at least from my perspective. It would seem the 60% of Americans who support the Arizona law are the "mainstream" on this particular issue.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-06-2010, 01:38 AM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy View Post
To your point about the term "mainstream America", I agree it's an obscure concept and can carry nativistic overtones depending on how its used. But the main thrust of Dotcom's post was right on point, at least from my perspective. It would seem the 60% of Americans who support the Arizona law are the "mainstream" on this particular issue.
Thanks for your response. I'm glad to know that we can agree that the concept of "mainstream America" can be problematic.

As for polls, that's often a tricky matter. We tend to believe poll results when they support our own views, and be skeptical of them when they don't. I'm reminded of the "Peanuts" cartoon where Linus is running for class president with Lucy as his campaign manager. She tells him she has the results of the latest polls.

Linus: "I don't believe in polls."

Lucy: "You're leading..."

Linus: "I BELIEVE IN POLLS!"

Also, as you know, much depends upon how questions are worded, and what information is provided or withheld by the pollster.

Having said that, though I haven't found your 60% poll result, the ones I have found do seem to indicate somewhat greater support for the Arizona bill than opposition to it at the moment. But a simple "pro/con" result belies the complexities and nuances that comprise people's thoughts and opinions on such complex matters. I think it remains to be seen how it will play out.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon

Last edited by listener; 05-06-2010 at 02:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-06-2010, 12:05 PM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by listener View Post
As for polls, that's often a tricky matter. . . .

Having said that, though I haven't found your 60% poll result . . .
I derived the 60% number from a poll that showed 51% supporting the law and 9% believing it didn't go far enough. So I think it's fair to say at least 60% think the law is a step in the right direction. If Ann is correct that the Arizona law essentially mirrors existing federal law (albeit with greater enforcement bite) then the opponents of the law don't have very much to stand on. I believe the law doesn't go far enough. As one MSNBC commentator remarked, there is one simple way to solve illegal immigration, and this need not be done as part of comprehensive reform: make hiring an illegal a felony. Do that immediately and I don't care if we spend the next 12 months debating comprehensive immigration reform.

Last edited by grits-n-gravy; 05-06-2010 at 12:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-09-2010, 05:12 PM
ImmRefDotCom ImmRefDotCom is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Can you direct me to any poll showing most Americans supporting ignoring or increasing illegal immigration? Every poll I've ever seen on this issue that asks has a large majoring in support of reducing *illegal* immigration.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-09-2010, 08:05 PM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmRefDotCom View Post
Can you direct me to any poll showing most Americans supporting ignoring or increasing illegal immigration? Every poll I've ever seen on this issue that asks has a large majoring in support of reducing *illegal* immigration.
I was making no claim as to whether or not most Americans support ignoring or increasing illegal immigration, or about what most Americans think about anything else, for that matter. I was only saying that when it comes to matters that have not been settled, I tend to be skeptical when I come across uncorroborated claims about what most Americans want.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon

Last edited by listener; 05-09-2010 at 08:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-05-2010, 10:45 PM
ImmRefDotCom ImmRefDotCom is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default Re: They already have a consensus

I don't know when this site got infested with ThinkProgress-level time-wasters like all those who've replied to my comments, but let me try to raise the level. Can you think of two major ways (one happening now, one proposed) in which massive illegal immig. results in diminished power for U.S. citizens? List some persons and groups who support said diminution.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-05-2010, 07:52 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: They already have a consensus

Now, conservatives wake up to the power of vested interests thwarting principled reform! I guess the action committee forgot to buy off the right pundits!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-05-2010, 07:42 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default A Rational Break in the Slobbering

Another interesting factoid and rumination about Faisal Shahzad, et al:

Quote:
There seems to be a pattern of mediocre sons from elite families becoming terrorists. Osama bin Laden's dad was a wildly succesful contractor with close ties to Saudi royalty. Underpants bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father was a prominent Nigerian banker and one of the wealthiest men in Africa. Perhaps they feel like failures next to their successful dads, and militancy offers a pathway toward self-respect.
Gratefully, the canard about terrorists coming from impoverished families has been smashed to smithereens, too.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Ottorino Ottorino is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 19
Default Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)

Ann Althouse. Sexiest woman who's ever been on bloggingheads.tv. Her essence, her mind.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-05-2010, 12:03 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default What's ten days between wingnuts?

I love how, while Pinkerton and Althouse were speculating wildly about the reasons for Obama's alleged slow response to the catastrophe in the Gulf, Pinkerton remembered that the oil spill occurred on April 10, fully a week and a half before it actually did

Could it be that their perception that Obama waited a long time to react has something to do with the fact that the incident occurred a full ten days after they thought it did?

Maybe if they knew the date the incident occurred, their speculation about the promptness of the response would be more compelling.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-06-2010, 11:33 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: What's ten days between wingnuts?

Reminds me of his comment about there being no booms in the gulf. I think this diavlog has given me insight into Mr. Pinkerton's strategy when discussing environmental issues; Offer up enough stupidity to get people to stop bothering to correct him, so later on newcomers will see that no one is contradicting him and then conclude he must have a point.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-07-2010, 12:47 PM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: What's ten days between wingnuts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
Reminds me of his comment about there being no booms in the gulf. I think this diavlog has given me insight into Mr. Pinkerton's strategy when discussing environmental issues; Offer up enough stupidity to get people to stop bothering to correct him, so later on newcomers will see that no one is contradicting him and then conclude he must have a point.
Assuming it's a strategy gives Pinkerton far too much credit. I think he's just a reflexive ideologue. Unfortunately, stupidity works in Amerikka.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-07-2010, 12:49 PM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Another mistake

Ann and Jim suggested that Faisal Shahzad wasn't Mirandized, and smirk about how liberals, who supposedly both love Miranda and think Obama can do no wrong, will deal with the cognitive dissonance. But of course he was read his Miranda rights, and he's cooperating now too.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-07-2010, 01:32 PM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: Another mistake

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
Ann and Jim suggested that Faisal Shahzad wasn't Mirandized, and smirk about how liberals, who supposedly both love Miranda and think Obama can do no wrong, will deal with the cognitive dissonance. But of course he was read his Miranda rights, and he's cooperating now too.
According to the report I heard, he was read his rights several hours AFTER he had been interrogated. So Ann and Jim are in the clear on this one.

Last edited by grits-n-gravy; 05-07-2010 at 01:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-05-2010, 02:48 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default A Nation Built by Immigrants?

I'd like to take issue with the oft-repeated cliche that America was "built by immigrants," which both Ann and Jim let pass without comment.

In the first place, I would point out that most of the social progress that was made in this country occurred in the decades following the end of mass immigration in the 1920's. It was only then that women's suffrage was fully established and the political forces built to the point that Francis Perkins could get her legislative agenda through Congress: the end of child labor, wage and hour laws (40 hour week), unemployment insurance, Social Security, occupational safety, etc.

The period of high immigration (1880-1920), the so-called Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties, was a period of economic regress so far as ordinary Amricans were concerned. Wages declined, hours increased (14 hour days, sweat shops, industrial strife) until finally popular political pressure (and the Great Depression) overcame the interests of big business, which supported wholesale immigration.

Furthermore, it was the 30 years between the New Deal and the 1965 Immigration Act that America's immigrant population was fully assimilated into American culture. This was the generation that fought World War II, in both Europe and the Pacific, and then came home to establish the middle-class American Dream as an inclusive ideal for all Americans, not just the lucky few who made it big. And, finally, it was during this period that the Civil Rights revolution took place.

As for the period between 1600 and 1880, it was not immigration in general but Protestant immigrants from Great Britain and northern Germany who built the economy and established our egalitarian institutions and democratic ideals. (African Americans made enormous contributions, too, of course, except they were not immigrants but slaves who came involuntarily.) And it was primarily Protestant Americans (with some Catholic help, primarily from Ireland) who fought and won the Civil War, thus ending slavery and establishing the idea that economic and political liberty belong to all Americans, not just the propertied few. It is simply a historical fact that Jews, Asians, and people of Latin American descent played a very minor role in all these developments.

As for the current period, it is very much like the Gilded Age so far as most ordinary Americans are concerned: a period of economic regress, of lower real hourly wages, a longer workweek, deteriorating working conditions, labor disorganization, and rising racial and ethnic tensions. The main difference is that Jews and Asian Americans have joined the ruling elites, where they have played a significant role in passing our current trade and immigration laws, which are driving these trends.

As for who is responsible for these developments and what they portend for the future, I would like to emphasize the outsized role played by Jewish (strictly speaking Ashkenazie) Americans, since theirs was far and away the most influential voice in establishing our current trade and immigration policies. No doubt their motives were honorable. They wanted to help poor working people in countries oversees (in the case of Nafta and Gatt) and to build a multiracial society in which their own place in it would not stick out so far. Going forward however I doubt that these policies will continue to work in their favor. The new immigrant groups coming into America are far more anti-Semitic than Americans of European origin have ever been. (I am not talking about our pre-war Anglo-Saxon elite.) It therefore becomes an open question of how much longer the majority of ordinary Americans will continue to be committed to the safety and security of the State of Israel, to choose one crucial example, and to the sacrifices which that commitment entails. This is a serious consideration, for American Jews especially, which I think I am entitled to point out as a steadfast friend and supporter of Israel. My record is clear in this regard. But I am an old man and my generation -- a predominantly Protestant generation -- is getting old and will soon pass away.

So let me say this: If I were in Jewish shoes (where I often put myself) I would be worrying how long the next generation of ordinary Americans, white, black, and brown, will continue to feel the same way? Right now this class of people has no real friends in high places. That is perfectly obvious. Maybe it is time American Jews took their side. God knows they need help, someone to champion their interests for a change.

And another thing: why don't the proponents of mass immigration pay more attention to the effects it has on the countries from which these immigrants come? Is it really a good idea for the most talented and energetic members of a poor country to pick up and move to America instead of staying to build a better society at home? What about the majorities left behind? Nobody thinks about them either. Look at the statistics.

I know these are controversial positions. That's the nice thing about being at the end of your life. You have nothing to lose. You can really speak your mind.

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 05-05-2010 at 03:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-05-2010, 04:41 PM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: A Nation Built by Immigrants?

Quote:
But I am an old man and my generation -- a predominantly Protestant generation -- is getting old and will soon pass away.
You would have to be incredibly old indeed to be able to characterize your generation as "predominantly Protestant".
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-05-2010, 06:50 PM
dkschwartz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: WELCOME TO THE NEW AMERICA.

If you want to see what the New America will look like go to a slum and look around. Diverse, poverty-stricken and crime-ridden. Hope, you liberals like President Jesse Jackson Jr. and Vice President Luis Guiterrez!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-05-2010, 06:53 PM
dkschwartz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: America is and was a European melting pot.

Why do we import millions of muslims to America? Are we masochists? Do we want carbombs? Why do we bring terrorism to our shores? especially when 25 million are out of work.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.