Sunday, April 23rd 2006
Weird (Political) Science
I read blink by Malcolm Gladwell over the weekend. It was interesting and easy enough to read that I finished it in two sittings (one in which I was buzzed from Raleigh’s pear cider and cheap vodka shots… drinking and reading is a surprisingly effective combo). I remember the book receiving all kinds of accolades when it was first released. I didn’t think that it was that mind-blowingly awesome, but it was pretty good.
I’ll spare you all from my amateur book review and move on to something that hit me while I was reading.
In one chapter, Gladwell writes about how sometimes our impressions of things are totally off. He tells the story behind a revolutionary new office chair. This chair was more comfortable than any other chair on the market, but it looked so strange that it received terrible marks in aesthetics. Going forward with the product would be risky. The company took a chance, released it, and, to everyone’s surprise, it sold very well. Customers praised both its comfort and design while competitors raced to imitate what had been seen as ugly up until then. Gladwell explains:
The problem is that buried among the things that we hate is a class of products that are in that category only because they are weird. They make us nervous. They are sufficiently different that it takes us some time to understand that we actually like them.
I think we sometimes face the same situation when it comes to politics. Our culture and media condition us to believe that there are only liberal Democratic blue staters and conservative Republican red staters. Tell someone that you’re a Republican and they instantly have a profile of what you supposedly stand for. And in our unfortunately polarized world, you’re going to get a reaction that you really don’t deserve.
I lived in the dorms my freshman year. I’m not the kind of person who advertises their political beliefs. In fact, it’s pretty hard to get anything political out of me (besides on this blog, of course). But somehow, some of my floormates were successful in extracting that I was a Republican and I worked on the Patriot. They were dead set in seeing me as the stereotypical Republican, so I had to put up with the usual mocking (thankfully not mean-spirited). I tried to explain multiple times that I was a libertarian, but they still considered me the typical Republican and continued with the typical anti-Republican talking points. It wasn’t until many months later that they finally realized that their judgement of me was way off. In the end, they even admitted that they shared some of my views and that they wished all Republicans were like me.
It took almost a year to get those guys to move beyond their first impressions. I’ve been less successful with some of my other friends. I mean, even after explaining time and time again what I believe in, they still think I’m some kind of hardcore Bush-backer. I’m sure I’ll be able to enlighten them in the end, but it’ll take some time and effort.
We have the same problem on the national level. Our political offices are mostly filled with run-of-the-mill Republicans and Democrats, George Bushes and John Kerrys. Every now and then, someone comes around who breaks the mold, however slightly. We have the John McCains and Howard Deans of the world. The media correctly labels them “mavericks” since they really are, relatively speaking. The public has come to genuinely like these politicians.
We need more “mavericks,” especially ones that are even further from the political mainstream. We need candidates that make the voters uncomfortable. We need candidates that aren’t afraid to go down in flames. They aren’t going to win on their first tries, but they lay the groundwork for future victories. The voters like these politicians, they just don’t know it yet. The voters like these ideas, they just don’t realize it yet.
I’m doing my small part on this blog to get such “strange and uncomfortable” ideas out there. I’d like to see more actual candidates doing the same. Losing sucks, but not getting the message out is even worse. So go on and spread the word: they’ll hate you now, but they’ll thank you in the end.
It’s an interesting dynamic. We need groups/generalities/stereotypes for us to function as a society. Every word and label carries definitions and characteristics. Republicans must have certain characteristics - if the word loses any sense of a base meaning, it loses all significance.
So, how do we try to tell people there is no such thing as a sterotypical republican, while still trying to maintain the idea that a Republican means something? Same goes for conservatives, democrats, liberals, et al.
The shame is that political ideology has, for some reason, become a corrolary of personality, and that’s where I sometimes get lost. I don’t really see why they have gone through a convergent evolution, if you will, but they have.
Comment by Morbo — 4/23/2006 @ 1:48 am
I agree with the sentiment, but McCain is a very bad example. His greatest claim to fame, McCain-Feingold, caused a significant erosion of free speech, just as it was predicted by people who were thought to be paranoics at the time. Basically, the whole thing was engineered by the Pew Charitable Trust plaing McCain for sucker. And why? Because he’s incompetent. The outgoing chairman of FCC said about him: “He does not understand issues. And then he gets angry.”
Comment by Pete Zaitcev — 4/23/2006 @ 4:31 am
Kamchatka, Crown Royal, Vladimir™, & others , charcoal filtered, oil-tasting potato water. Nothing says burn like cheap vodka.
Ketel One® = smooth, refreshing and financially depleting.
Comment by what — 4/23/2006 @ 1:30 pm
John McCain is a good example of a maverick, though not the kind of maverick that we want. He’s gotten people to support him who would previously never support a Republican. Besides his faults (campaign finance reform, steroid hearings, etc), he at least supports fiscal restraint. But yes, we can do way better than him.
The kind of maverick I’m thinking about would be more along the lines of Ron Paul or Jeff Flake. They offer a compelling libertarian alternative that voters hadn’t been offered until they ran. People who never would have voted Republican before could realize that these kinds are alright.
Comment by patr — 4/23/2006 @ 1:45 pm
The kind of Republican I want in office, small federal spending one, philosophy on community action, responsibility to forcing the Americans to higher standards of education (So they understand what is actually going on around them) instead watching endless episodes of garbage TV and becoming stupid (just watch TV to see how stupid they become), a strong and (non-pro-action) military, and emphasis on self-reliance, especially to energy concerns will not happen.
McCain went the wrong rout in finance reform when they didn’t focus on soft-money and instead focused on hard-money which is against free speech. Many bills are bundled together which is crap, meaning many good parts are soundly defeated because of the larger part is worthless.
Comment by what — 4/23/2006 @ 3:41 pm
sooooooo waasted dude
psh
Comment by HB — 4/23/2006 @ 4:36 pm
Speaking of Republican Candidate, anyone out there supports Rudy Giuliani. I think he would make a great president. He managed to turn around New York at a time when it was crippled with violence and social rest. Furthermore, he did a tremendous job post 9/11. If anyone can bring America to a new Peak it’s him.
Also, has anyone read the other book by Malcom Gladwell, the Tipping Point? It’s a great book on human behavior and very useful whether you’re studying Marketing, Psychology or Political Sciencce.
Comment by Damon Z — 4/24/2006 @ 6:59 pm
You know, it’s funny Damon. Many of the attributes you said RG possessed are some of the traits that many thought Bush possessed after 9/11.
Well, so much for Bush’s new peak, eh?
On a smaller note, do you really think post 9/11 America was “crippled with violence and social rest”?
Comment by Archangel — 4/24/2006 @ 10:00 pm
Yeah, I agree. The word Republican these days is a misnomer, and bears no relevance to the meaning of the word conservatives. The only respectable conservatives are the Pat Buchanan-like people - limited government and spending, end to illegal immigration, and isolationist foreign policy. In fact, the GOP’s lack of adherence to these conservative values are causing the problems we have today (in terms of unemployment, terrorism, ..) Dr. Bush’s cure is the cause of the disease. He isn’t making America stronger; he’s making it weaker by hopping on the bandwagon of big government and interventionism. He allows illegals to take jobs away from those who deserve it, runs record liberal-like defiicts increasing interst rates and unemployment, and creates terrorists by meddling in other countries business.
Comment by Fresh Prince — 4/24/2006 @ 10:13 pm
yeah no kidding, thanks for the slave wages.
http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_113105613.html
Comment by HB — 4/24/2006 @ 10:17 pm
Ok, for all you really annoying paleo-cons, can you exlain to me how deportation-minded immigration policies and isolationist policies are more ‘conservative’ than those of people like me, who support relative amnesty and am definitely not isoloationist. What makes your stances more ‘conservative’? What’s your template?
I believe Bush’s foreign policy is incredibly conservaative, and applaud him for it. I don’t see how its not conservative. You may not like it, but that’s the not the same thing as it not being conservative.
Comment by Morbo — 4/24/2006 @ 10:18 pm
Conservatism in defining the founding principles of American foreign policy was basically hands-off other countries. Only stipulation was national interests, and I say that lightly, because they meant imminent danger: when Bush and the US did not find Iraq a real danger we should have high-tailed it out of there. But – no! Therefore, Bush’s foreign policy is like a Russian Foreign policy after WWII. Surprisingly, it is extremely left-winged. Like it or not the proof was our democratic representatives not calling for withdrawal day-in-and-day-out on Capital Hill, which makes them complicit to varying degrees with Bush’s left-wing policy.
And population was no concern during the first 200 years of the American experiment. Today, we are flooded with financial problems related to letting anyone in here. A macrocosm of this problem placed in a relative view with our own personal microcosm and can be seen as if we allow any and everyone to just walk in and live in our living spaces (i.e. bedrooms, living rooms, our homes). Many come here with no money and no job experience, and this means we have to support them because we are a caring society. This means eventually we have to open our personal space and support them.
Bush decided he didn’t want a civil war in 2007 - therefore, the above applies.
Comment by what — 4/24/2006 @ 10:45 pm
“Conservatism in defining the founding principles of American foreign policy was basically hands-off other countries.”
Really? According to who? And where? Reagan was very involved in other countries, and is famous for an aggressive foreign policy. Nixon was also very much about opening up with other countries. Bush Sr. invaded another country.
Who are these consveratives who were isolationists? The biggest isolationist of the 20th century was probably FDR - him and the presisdents of the 20s, who were of both parties.
Isolationism is neither conservative nor liberal - its merely a matter of efficacy and national mood. It has no inherent ideological underpinning, other than its own.
Comment by Morbo — 4/24/2006 @ 10:50 pm
What part of founding principles do you not understand?
The founders had no problem with letting people into this country.
Comment by what — 4/24/2006 @ 11:16 pm
What does that have to do with isolationism? And how, in any way, do current definitions of conservative and liberal have any connection to the Founding Fathers?
Comment by Morbo — 4/24/2006 @ 11:20 pm
Pointless nation building and democracy spreading…that’s something Bush stood against when he ran for the first time. Republicans were on Clinton’s ass for Bosinia and it was sure alright to be supportive of Saddam and Bin Laden if they did the job that needed to be done.
Wilsonian style idealism and carelessness about the federal budget and social issues…that’s what he stands for now. Just because militarism is associated with the right in the US does not mean you can get away with cosmopolitan pragmatism in everything else and still be conservative.
Comment by HB — 4/24/2006 @ 11:24 pm
“What does that have to do with isolationism? And how, in any way, do current definitions of conservative and liberal have any connection to the Founding Fathers?” –
You the one confusing the issue not me. What does ‘founding’ have to do with Reagan or Nixon? Nothing. You are the one confused. Also, my point was clear and nowhere did I mention isolationism. You must be confusing me with some other poster. In general, I deem isolationism with interaction to outside one’s boarders. A great example is the Imperial policy on non-trade doctrine of many Chinese dynasties. Immigration is a different issue all together. Letting people flood into your home at random and will has noting to do with interaction to other entities (Countries) out side of your boarder.
Comment by what — 4/24/2006 @ 11:43 pm
Pointless nation building and democracy spreading…that’s something Bush stood against when he ran for the first time. - HB
I remember that.
Comment by what — 4/24/2006 @ 11:45 pm
Pat, I have to disagree with you; what YOU want are more mavericks, i.e. more people who are politically alligned with your beliefs. Which is fine (and expected!). But that’s not what I want. I want a Conservative. I want someone who subscribes to my political viewpoints. And, because I believe my views are the best for the country, I want to explain and convince people of my views.
What Conservatives need far more than “mavericks” are orators. We need people like WFB or Reagan who can convince people the merits of conservative ideals. That’s how we should get votes.
Comment by John — 4/25/2006 @ 4:14 pm
I think they are basically the same thing. Let’s not forget that Reagan and Buckley were the mavericks of their time. Reagan even challenged Ford for the ‘76 nomination, and though some people disliked him for that, they eventually realized that he was a great choice and chose him in ‘80. Of course, not every maverick has to be a great “orator.” All they need to do is demonstrate their principles through their actions and people will pay attention.
Comment by patr — 4/25/2006 @ 4:55 pm
what: I don’t really get the analogy between letting strangers live in your house and allowing free immigration. I hear it a lot from immigration restrictionists, but it’s clearly flawed in my eyes. There’s no obligation to provide anything to immigrants (or citizens for that matter. Where’s the outrage at the group that leeches off social services the most?). If a stranger wanted to live in my house and expect me to provide for him, then he’s better off leaving because he’s getting nothing from me. On the other hand, if he comes and mows my lawn, tends the garden, cleans the house, cooks me dinner, and everything else that I don’t want to do, then I’d be a fool to kick him out.
Comment by patr — 4/25/2006 @ 8:49 pm
“There’s no obligation to provide anything to immigrants ”
Are you saying we do not provide anything for free to the immigrants? …They have no ill affect on American way of life? Have you not learned? Do you not see? Please tell me you are not this naive?
Comment by what — 4/25/2006 @ 9:39 pm
Well in a perfect world, government doesn’t provide anything to anyone (except maybe a military and a few other things like that).
List some of the “ill affects” of free immigration and we can go from there.
Comment by patr — 4/25/2006 @ 9:45 pm
Immigrants:
First-off lets look at it from the anti-immigration view. Most see this as a future problem and not current problem. What they understand is these many historical fields that have documented, written and recorded this social phenomenon. They all agree that immigration in part led to the fall of most great civilizations, including Indian, Islamic, Egyptian, Roman and Greek and others. What there dispute is over is the severity of the significance not the general notion. All believe immigration it had a real significance.
Now , here is there period argument. Lets look at it from a microcosm, i.e. one county.
What to start-off with Los Angeles Country Laws and Regulations? ( This is economic in issue – we have potholes, old sewers and a crumbling infrastructure, but we cannot do crap about it because we pay a lot of money to something that we could have fixed a long time ago. This may not be a huge problem now, but 15 years down the line or 30 and we are looking at a major significance.
Particulars:
You cannot turn an immigrant away from basic services in California, and for most part any state of this Union. It is a law.
All County hospitals accept anyone without documentation (they are overfilled in the county and many had to shut down do to no money to pay for the services) , it is a posted law at the facilities and strictly observed law in Los Angeles country for decades (and other parts across this country), and costs multi-multi-billions according to various studies over the decades (in California alone – so many studies vary you do not know which one is correct). Why not stop them? America is a carrying place and most people will put up with the extra money rather than see civil war in the streets because the state and federal gov. chooses ( chose) to do nothing all those decades. Bush has decided not to kick them out for this reason alone, although he didn’t make this pubic – it is a given understanding of what is social unrest. Many welfare recipients were/are immigrants as well; they have over 5 children which equals a lot of money (per month) compared to just a few kids on welfare. All one needs to have is a social security number that one can by for $20-$250 dollars on many streets of LA Country. They sell them at laundry mats, they sell them in downtown and they sell them in the park. Hardly any police are out in force to stop this (no money it goes to other services). One report is that one officer was appointed to region of 250,000 people. You cannot do crap with that.
The welfare offices are packed day in and day out. There are so many grass cutters and servants in Los Angles Country many go to jail because they cannot work and many who do not decide to go the criminal rout group all over the city in mass herds. They create trash, the create bureaucracy to house them in jail and hardly any are sent home unless convinced of a serious felony. If they are sent home it costs thousands of dollars in escorts and paper-work and judges.
Los Angeles county welfare financial costs per month exceeds roughly a $150-230 million dollars per month , including paying the many workers to keep up with the overload of people. This doesn’t include the hospital costs that are much higher in dollar amounts and that have closed and the ones that remain open because they could pay overtime to the staff and doctors administering to the flood of immigrants - were talking billions of dollars too. There is no shortage of workers. And what is wrong with people getting off their F*&k ass and cutting the grass themselves? Nothing! Clinton has an immigrant chauffeur because he didn’t want to pay top-dollar but he has homes in Ireland, and New York and apartments in DC and other places. He is greedy slob. There are examples of Republicans as well and I see examples all over America of this mindset. It seems to be the mindset of the ancients as well. ‘The more things change the more they stay the same’.
Many regions in SoCal are not recognizable anymore, the street signs, the shops, the laws on the buildings are all not in English, and racism sprouts fierce from these ethnics centers. There is no American cohesion or community. It’s a balkanization at its highest form – never the plan of the United States. We should be integrating and we are not. This is a fact. Why is that? It is because these immigrants are uneducated and the founders have said that an uneducated society cannot run a republic or democracy - whatever you want to call it. This applies to now and that these immigrants are flooding into the United States is frightful and at an alarming rate and are basically unskilled and uneducated. California used to rant number one in education in the world of 4th grade -12 grade in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Now it is close to the bottom in the world.
There are many Americans that do not live in 20 people-to-an-apartment and want to cut your grass for possibly $20-30 more dollars per month than what the immigrants will charge. But it is in partly to blame of the greed in which is shown here all over the country by these gluttons, which want the cheapest things they can get. This was typical of the ancients too. That is just new economic slavery and will turn out to be frowned upon in history as the black slave issue unless we give this land over to them (just like the ancients) and their un-American way of life. This means no-one looks to the future for our children. I want them to live in an educated place with opportunities like my parents had and have a chance to live not in a third world country or bring up my children in the sewers our cities have become. That is what this country is turning into and Europe is rising from it slowly but surely. Maybe we will move there.
That is a microcosm of one city and I did not even touch the other factors as I have not too much time tonight. There are going to be people like you who say who cares, and these are the same attitudes of the ancients. Therefore, America will follow in its collapse (in part of course) to the other factors that lead to a great civilization’s downfall.
There is a great way to keep them and you could keep your cheap grass cutter as well. …Will advocate passing a national or statewide law to have each student or at least each American resident pay $30,000 per year for the upkeep of the flood and for the infrastructural damage as it progressively gets worn-out. We will also demand you give up some of your belonging to them as they demand equality too. They just do not want to work for you they want your lifestyle. And if you allow them they will have it –trust me- it is only easy to see how the ancients followed in the same footsteps so long ago.
Well that is there argument, and for the most part denial is a great way to put this out of a guilty-mindset. Choices are not always easy in life, and American have a choice for a future or deny and follow Louis XV’s ill decorum: “Aprčs moi, le deluge”!
Bush chose Louis!
Comment by what — 4/25/2006 @ 10:49 pm
Sorry for the hurried bad writing but I have other stuff to do. If anything is not clear please ask.
Comment by what — 4/25/2006 @ 10:53 pm
List some of the “ill affects” of free immigration and we can go from there.
Comment by patr — 4/25/2006
Immigrants:
First-off lets look at it from the anti-immigration view. Most see this as a future problem and not current problem. What they understand are these many historical fields that have been documented, been written and been recorded that show these social phenomenon. They all agree that immigration in part led to the down-fall of most of these great civilizations, including, but not limited too, Indian, Islamic, Egyptian, Roman and Greek and others. What there dispute is over is to the severity of the magnitude of the significance and not the general notion. All of them believe immigration had a real significance in history.
What does this tell us?
Lets look at it from a microcosm, i.e. one county. Lets see what the issues of anti-immigration in 2006 entail.
To start-off, we will use the region known as the Los Angeles Country with its immigration Laws and Regulations? (This is economic in issue at its base) General Concerns: we have potholes, old sewers and a crumbling infrastructure, but we cannot pay to fix it without money and it is a factor of policy that we pay a lot of money to something that we could have fixed a long time ago. This may not be a huge problem now, but 15 years down the line or 30 and the anti-immigration proponents are looking at a major significance here.
Particulars to what is happening recently and continuing till today:
You cannot turn an immigrant away from basic services in California, and for most part any state of this Union. It is a law.
All County hospitals accept anyone without documentation (they are overfilled with non-paying patrons which is not against the law – the county doesn’t through people into jail for not paying) Many hospitals had to shut down do to no money to pay for these services. Overcrowdings, does not negate the posted laws at the facilities and the strictly observed laws in Los Angeles country in which for decades (and other parts across this country) costs multi-multi-billions of dollars according to various studies over the decades (in California alone – so many studies have varied one does not know which one is correct).
Why not stop them? It is the people that do not want to be mean. America is a carrying place and most people will put up with the extra money rather than see civil war in the streets. The state and federal gov. chooses ( chose) to do nothing all those decades in regards to immigration reform. Bush has decided not to kick them out for this reason alone, although he didn’t make this pubic – it is a given understanding of what is social unrest. We see it in the news daily: the shutdown for protests in meat factories by some immigrants or relatives to immigrants in solidarity. This is a dialectical phenomenon.
Public Services cont…
Many welfare recipients were/are immigrants as well; they have over 5 children which equals a lot of money (per month) compared to just a few kids on welfare. All one needs to have is a social security number that one can purchase illegally for $20-$250 dollars on many streets of LA Country. They sell them at laundry mats, they sell them in downtown and they sell them in the park. Hardly any police are out in force to stop this (no money either as it goes to other services). One report shows that one officer was appointed to region for this problem of a population of 250,000 people. You cannot do crap with that. This means this loop-hole in the system is widely exploited. The government has a huge annual fund of money coming into SS to which is free money for them to play with and not accountable in records, as these are not US citizens but fake accounts. This doesn’t give an excuse for the illegality of it all. Therefore, The welfare offices and other offices that take SS ids are packed day in and day out.
Creating unnecessary Bureaucracy:
There are so many grass cutters and servants in Los Angles Country and many go to jail because they cannot find work and turn to crime. Therefore, many who do not decide to go the criminal rout, then all group around the city in mass herds. They create trash, they create bureaucracy to house them in jail and hardly any are sent home unless convinced of a serious felony. If they are sent home it costs the U.S. thousands of dollars in escorts and paper-work and judges.
Los Angeles county welfare financial costs per month exceed roughly a $150-230 million dollars per month, including paying these many workers to keep up with the overload of people. This doesn’t include the hospital costs that are much higher in dollar amount and that have continuously closed due to expenditure problems. The ones that remain open because they could pay overtime to the staff and doctors administering to the flood of immigrants - were going bankrupt because of the millions-to- billions of dollars it takes to run these facilities.
There is no shortage of workers. This is a myth created by politicians and activists. And what is wrong with people getting off their F*&k ass and cutting the grass themselves? Nothing! What does this really tell us about the American citizen? Clinton has an immigrant chauffeur because he didn’t want to pay top-dollar for a established citizen, but he has homes in Ireland, and New York and apartments in DC and other places. He is a greedy slob. He even as admitted that he acts sometimes ( after his presidency) as a rich republican. He became very wealthy after his presidency through book deals and job offers. There are examples of Republicans as well and I see examples all over America of this mindset. It seems to be the mindset of the ancients as well. ‘The more things change the more they stay the same.’
The failure of diversity.
Many regions in SoCal are not recognizable anymore: the street signs, the shops, the laws on the buildings are all not in English, and racism sprouts fierce from these ethnics centers. There is no American cohesion or community as we should expect. It’s a balkanization at its highest form and never was the plan for the United States. We should be integrating and we are not. This is/was a fact. Why is that? It is because these immigrants are uneducated. What does that mean? The founders have said that an uneducated society cannot run a republic or democracy - whatever you want to call it. This applies to now and that these immigrants are flooding into the United States and this is frightful and at an alarming rate. They are basically unskilled and uneducated. California used to rank number one in education in the world of 4th grade -12 grade in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Now it is close to the bottom rank in the world. This is/was the wrong direction.
Differences in lifestyles..
There are many Americans that do not want to live in 20 people-to-an-apartment and want to cut your grass for possibly $20-30 more dollars per month to pay there expenses.
But it is in part to blame of the greed in which is shown here all over the country by these gluttons, which want the cheapest things they can get. This was typical of the ancients too. What is the morality? This is just a new economic slavery and will turn out to be frowned upon in history just as the black slave issue did; and unless we give this land over to them (just like the ancients) and their un-American way of life, we will be viewed just like the slave-masters. Turing a blind eye to this issue means no-one looks to the future for our children. I want them to live in an educated place with opportunities like my parents had and have a chance to live not in a third world country or bring up my children in the sewers our cities have become. That is what this country is turning into, a sewer.
That is a microcosm of just one county and I did not even touch the other factors related to immigration. There are going to be people like you who say who cares, and these are the same attitudes of the ancients. Therefore, the patters remains as a given. America will follow in its collapse (in part of course) to the factors that lead to other great civilization’s downfall.
Is there a solution?
Yes. But you may not like it. There is a great way to continue to allow them to flood into the United States so you could keep your cheap grass cutter as well. …Americans ( must) will advocate passing a national or statewide law to have each student or at least each American resident pay $30,000 per year for the upkeep of the flood and for the infrastructural damage as it progressively gets worn-out. We (actually they) will also demand you give up some of your belonging to them as they demand equality too ( See slave-master example). They just do not want to work for you they want your lifestyle. And if you allow them to come in they will have it –trust me- it is only easy for us to see how the ancients followed in the same footsteps so long ago and lost everything. Some may say this is just evolution of a state. To this I might add.
Well that is there argument, and for the most part denial is a great way to put this out of a guilty-mindset. Choices are not always easy in life, and Americans have a choice for a future of living in a first world country or to deny it and follow Louis XV’s ill decorum: “Aprčs moi, le deluge”!
Comment by what — 4/26/2006 @ 4:48 pm
“Apres moi le deluge”, that’s the quote serial killer Andrew Cunana put on his yearbook
Archangel- I did not express myself correctly. New York was terrible in the 1980s and Rudy Giuliani did a great job of turning the city around. Moreover, he would know a thing or two about dealing with immigration.
Comment by Damon Z — 4/27/2006 @ 8:19 am
Great American Boycott [of] 2006
I’ve seen signs posted on dorms and other Buildings around Berkeley for the immigrant staff to take this day-off ( of non-immigrant staff too, just if you look like a non-white person – it appears a freebee). This boycott will possibly cost million in not multi-millions if they do shut down the street traffic for business in the big cities.
Does Berkeley actually hire illegals? – I guess it is Illegaldarity Day. Everyone is an immigrant in reality so I’m calling for everyone to take the day-off – have fun.
We’re going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno”
State Senate Supports Immigrant Walkout On Monday
Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, while citing immigrants’ contributions, said the nation’s goal should be assimilation: “From many people, one people, the American people. One race, the American race.”
Comment by what — 4/27/2006 @ 10:34 pm