Globalization

Meg · August 16, 2009

An offset of the health care thread . . .

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

In some ways, that 18th century isolationist mindset still exists. We have people here who are convinced that "globalism" is a bad thing. and, for Americans, it generally is. Globalism is a fact of life that isn't going away but many people here have not accepted that yet.

quote>

At least someone here understands that the US has the most to lose under globalism. It's not some outmoded archaic view that drives rejection of it, but the recognition of its danger. The rest of the world, being so far behind us in so many areas, would love to have the field artificially leveled.

As for it being a 'fact of life'; so is cancer. That's not going away either, but still we fight it.

Of course, some of us have always known what it will ultimately lead to and will fight it with every resource we have, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

quote>

Yes, it is a whole ‘nother topic. But an interesting one so let’s discuss it here.

First, let’s look at a definition of what we are talking about.

Taken from Wikipedia (since it at least pretends to be neutral):

Globalization (or globalisation) describes an ongoing process by which regional economies, societies and cultures have become integrated through globe-spanning networks of exchange. The term is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization: the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.[3]. However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural, political and biological factors.[4] The term can also refer to the transnational dissemination of ideas, languages, or popular culture. quote>

Now, looking back at what you were saying

The rest of the world, being so far behind us in so many areas, would love to have the field artificially leveled. quote>

How does the term “artificially leveled” apply? There are several factors at work here.

Look at some basic economic principles, like supply and demand. The supply and demand still exist, regardless of whether or not there are national borders involved. To use a simple example, Americans eat bananas and grind coffee beans despite the fact that we can’t grow them ourselves; we import them from countries who can.

More pertinent is the issue of the available supply of labor. There is a heck of a lot of labor out there that is willing, eager, and able to work at lower rates than Americans are. Fight that all you want but you might as well fight gravity.

A few years ago, I took a tour through Belize City. In my geography classes, Belize was called British Honduras but they have since gained their independence. They don’t like being a third world country. They want to work their way out of poverty. They figure the next logical step for them is manufacturing. They are actively looking for companies to come down there and employ their willing and eager workforce.

How is it “artificially leveling” the field if a company goes down there? Isn’t that company simply following the market forces and going where there is a high supply of what it needs? It’s not good for the people who worked in the old abandoned factory but what is “artificial” about it?

Let’s get back to the definition. A key point is “globe-spanning networks of exchange”. There are all kinds of networks, the most obvious being the internet, but there are other kinds of communication networks, shipping networks, and so forth. A flood happens in one corner of the world and we see it live 12 time zones away.

All of these networks are not going to just suddenly go away. How do you plan to fight them? Shoot down every orbiting satellite? Hack into every server?

Short of going Luddite and taking many unwilling people along with you, how do you plan to fight it? Create a “Mad Max” world?

Like it or not, Americans are not the only people on the planet. And, like it or not, there are billions of people out there who want the same thing our ancestors got: a chance to work their way out of poverty.

It’s like that old science experiment: get a fish tank and divide it with a pane of glass. Put salt water on one side and fresh water on the other. Replace the pane of glass with a permeable membrane. Gradually, but steadily, you will get a tank fill of water with the same concentration of salt.

That is where we are now. The barriers have become permeable so things are going to even out.

chris0101 · August 16, 2009

Originally posted by: manticorefan

At least someone here understands that the US has the most to lose under globalism. It's not some outmoded archaic view that drives rejection of it, but the recognition of its danger. The rest of the world, being so far behind us in so many areas, would love to have the field artificially leveled.

quote>

Actually, the US has much both to gain and to lose under globalism. Business opportunities can both cost US jobs through outsourcing and create new opportunities. Furthermore, the increasingly global nature of the world means that the dominant power has a greater ability to influence and set the future course for the entire world, not just individual nations.

The rest of the world is not so "far behind" actually. As Susan Hockfield, president of MIT acknowledged, the US is falling behind in terms of research, education, and indeed healthcare. In terms of the percentage of people employed by small businesses (ex: businesses with less than 1,000 people), the US is also lower. More people in the US work for larger corporations than in most other developed nations. Indeed, this is a serious problem for the US as it puts the idea of "creative destruction" needed to drive capitalism in serious jeopardy.

I myself find it ironic that all anti-war, anti-universal healthcare, and anti-corporate ideas are immediately accused of as "anti-Americanism". Likewise, the idea that "socialism" is all bad, and that "capitalism" is superior in every way is ridiculous, just as the idea that universal healthcare will turn the US into the USSR. Everything in this world has its ups and downs, its problems, and the US is no different.

Ntq€310 · August 16, 2009

There he goes again... bringing up the evil nature of American conservatives and how there wrong and to blame for all our issues.

But, there is no easy choice for our situation. Regions like the Great Lakes and Northeast are more industrial, and are facing more and more trouble surviving. Looking at the current downturn, those regions will most likely recover last. But, we could risk hurting the western and southern states in order to save other regions. What we need to do however is make a decision and take the action needed.

I think we need to save our industrial sector to a point, and besides, from what I can tell, all great world economies had a strong industrial sector. Besides that, the consumer economy is one that frankly, I don't think works for us.

your_adress_here · August 17, 2009

Originally posted by: chris0101

I myself find it ironic that all anti-war, anti-universal healthcare, and anti-corporate ideas are immediately accused of as "anti-Americanism". Likewise, the idea that "socialism" is all bad, and that "capitalism" is superior in every way is ridiculous, just as the idea that universal healthcare will turn the US into the USSR. Everything in this world has its ups and downs, its problems, and the US is no different.

quote>

Agreed

LarksTonguesInAspic · August 17, 2009

Aha. I see I haven't been entirely clear, so allow me to clarify:

I see no need to fight the natural, or even call it organic, globalization. From a business point of view, market forces blow where they will. The point of business is to make money, so naturally you follow the trends. No issue there, I'm not really going to go into the double-edged sword of regulations, tariffs and subsidies; except to say we've signed ourselves to some very silly deals that have come back to bite us (NAFTA) in the name of free trade. There is a limit to how much you can elevate absolute free trade before the cracks start to show.

I'm going to attempt to go through this on a purely secular level right now. Feel free to disagree with my POV, I know some will.

When I decry globalization, I refer to the political aspect. The slow, inexorable, inevitable drift towards a Global Government. It's not a paranoid delusion, when heads of state from around Europe, Russia, and even China have been openly clamoring for it lately. Far-lefties here in the US chimed in with approval. All in the name of financial stability, they said.

That's also behind the US bullying of the Swiss into putting an end to banking confidentiality, and naming names of depositors of the fabled Swiss bank accounts. To make the rich pay their fair share, they said. No one seemed to have a problem with our gov't dictating financial policy to the Swiss, something that should scare bankers around the world to death considering our fiscal and financial track record. IMO it amounted to a test run of the system, to see if old ways could be swept away that easily... score one for the Federal Reserve!

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter told FDR, : “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” The powers-that-be are pushing financial globalization to ease everyone around the globe into economic slavery IMO. The network exists already, they just want to get regulatory bodies standardized so they can get down to real fleecing. The political slavery will follow quickly, after we've all been chained to the same currency, which will be backed up by nothing more than air and gossamer promises of trustworthiness. Like the US dollar. The entire global banking network can flow through just one trans-governmental agency, with accountants and analysts and economists and board members, but no elected officials.

And when they have achieved this thing they said would never come, then what? Who could handle a bickering parliament of regional flunkies to a Global Central Authority, and get them to play by one-size-fits-all rules? It would take someone of great charisma and leadership skill to tame soon-to-be 7 billion arguing children enough to get anything done. Paul Henri-Spaak, one of the organizers of the old European Common Market (pre-EU), said, "Send us such a man, and be he God or devil, we will follow him." Hmmm, which one do yah think he'll turn out to be?

Throughout human history, such men have always popped up. Some aren't generally considered tyrants, like Alexander the Great (but the nameless villagers slaughtered along his routes would probably disagree), Genghis and Kublai Khan, Napoleon, etc; but some are; Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic, etc. What if any of these men had been present in a GCA? You'd end up with some RL version of Palpatine. Except that it's not a Lucas crapfest, it's real life, with no recourse available to those under a worldwide hobnailed boot. No nations who believe in freedom to liberate the oppressed, no rebels in X-wing fighters, no Luke Skywalker, just another numbered entity farther down the chaingang in the same boat as you.

If you build it, they will come. If you put up a global city hall, the corrupt *insert favorite corrupt politician here* will find a way into the big office, that's a certainty. Checks and balances can be swept aside for the right candidate (Hitler, Chavez, etc) and then where are we at? That's right, the chaingang again. I don't want the entire planet out that far on a limb, and I sure as hell don't want the US there either. There is nothing a GCA could offer the US that's worth trading sovereignty and the national right of self-determination for, we'd be on the losing end every single time.

Also, a GCA would obviously have to find a way to feed itself, and furnish its offices. Provide chauffered Benzes to bigwigs, procure prestigious office space, you know the stuff. Where will that cash come from? Well, us.

Imagine that, a new taxing body, just what we've all been dreaming of. Another agency eager to increase its annual budget, another set of computer servers keeping track of everyone's income, y'know, to make sure you pay your fair share. And where you live, in case you need help finding your checkbook.

Then comes the quibbling over how that loot is divided... better bone up on concepts like redistribution of wealth, as poor people in another hemisphere need your money more than you do. You rich American swine! How dare you eat when others can't. You should be so ashamed, you'd want to pay even more than you do now. Then maybe West Tierra del Bumbledork can afford an internet connection, like you rich greedy Americans. Don't believe me? Watch.

Any Global Authority will be a net drain on the North American Region or District or whatever geographic division they classify us in. We would never see benefit in proportion to cost, as we would just end up subsidizing anywhere with a lower standard of living. Why? Because any GCA would be a welfare state, guaranteed. Womb to the tomb, with expanded euthanasia benefits for qualified candidates... ask your local Global Collective Representative how to apply! The global welfare state is part and parcel of the plan, according to everyone who openly supports the idea.

And of course, there are the other wishlist items for friends of Kissinger's baby:

an end to tobacco use, worldwide (but pot is a-ok, you sedated fool, you. As long as you paid tax on it. Because it's medicinal, you know),

a disarming of nations who still give that right to their people (because you're really stupid and don't understand what we want to do for you, so you might fight it) and,

enforcing politically correct speech (because it's not a Utopia if it's not a Utopia for everyone, you know. Utopians don't give negative vibes to each other, it clouds the chakra.).

It's already a Federal crime in the US to think hateful thoughts about someone's race or nationality while you kill them, and it's a far worse crime than killing them for their car, wallet, or jellybean collection. That's Orwell in a nutshell; being prosecuted for what you were thinking. It will be global law, mark my words.

All societies and civilizations fall. No political structure lasts forever, not ours and the not the one now growing in China. When the New Noble Experiment crashes and burns as it must eventually, the economic consequences will be unprecedented. But this post is too long already and I'm at the end of my day, so I'll be back (duh).

Meg · August 17, 2009

Originally posted by: manticorefan

When I decry globalization, I refer to the political aspect. The slow, inexorable, inevitable drift towards a Global Government. It's not a paranoid delusion . . . quote>

No, it's not a paranoid delusion. It is indeed a slow, inexorable, and inevitable drift. Which means it isn't going to happen anytime soon. There are too many things that the 7 billion of us disagree on for it to happen anytime quickly.

For starters, some of us want a government free of religious dictates and others of us want religion to dictate the government. and, among those who want religion to dictate the government, there is no agreement as to which religion. These are not differences that are going to be sorted out overnight.

I'll admit that I'm highly skeptical of any cry that the world is ending and life as we know it is ending. I've been hearing it all my life and we are still here. Take, for instance, the whole "it's not a question of if but when" that the USA and the Soviet Union were going to get into a nuclear war. I can't count how many times I heard that in my younger days. But, ya know what? The Soviet Union fell apart before there was not a nuclear war. The doomsayers have cried wolf too many times in my lifetime.

That's also behind the US bullying of the Swiss into putting an end to banking confidentiality, and naming names of depositors of the fabled Swiss bank accounts. To make the rich pay their fair share, they said. No one seemed to have a problem with our gov't dictating financial policy to the Swiss, something that should scare bankers around the world to death considering our fiscal and financial track record. quote>

"Dictating" financial policy to the Swiss? Last I heard, the Swiss were free to tell us to go pound sand. Yes, it would have cost them in this case but they also had a reasonable case that the US government was blackmailing them. But, oh yeah, there isn't a world court where they could have taken that case.

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter told FDR, : “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” The powers-that-be are pushing financial globalization to ease everyone around the globe into economic slavery IMO. quote>

Economic slavery. okay . . . who are the slave masters in this scenario?

The network exists already, they just want to get regulatory bodies standardized so they can get down to real fleecing. The political slavery will follow quickly, after we've all been chained to the same currency, which will be backed up by nothing more than air and gossamer promises of trustworthiness. Like the US dollar. quote>

If everyone has the same currency, the foreign currency exchange market will cease to exist. The Forex market is an interesting way of acquiring money without actually contributing anything useful to anyone. But the average person does not understand it. Keeping it is in the best interest of those who do.

Let's say that I buy stock in Google (to pick a company at random). I would be, in essence, giving the google guys some capital to work with. If they make money, in which case my investment should pay off. If not, my money is going down with the company. Either way, the point is, someone, somewhere, is actually doing some kind of work.

Now, let's look at the foreign exchange market. If I read the news and follow the various charts, I could be able to know that now is the time to exchange US dollars for British pounds. Then, in a few days, I can change the pounds back into dollars, or into yen or whatever and wind up with more money than I started with. (Please note these are examples only. Do not make such trades based on what I'm saying.)

Where, exactly, is the actual work here? It is nothing more than playing musical currency based on the ebb and flow of the interactions between countries. The people who are making money doing this (and there are a lot of them) do not want this to go away any time soon. They are not going to sit back and let their cash cow disappear. We are talking about people with more financial clout than the average Joe.

Who could handle a bickering parliament of regional flunkies to a Global Central Authority, and get them to play by one-size-fits-all rules? quote>

There are no one-size-fits-all rules. and there are not going to be anytime soon.

Throughout human history, such men have always popped up. Some aren't generally considered tyrants, like Alexander the Great (but the nameless villagers slaughtered along his routes would probably disagree), Genghis and Kublai Khan, Napoleon, etc; but some are; Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic, etc. What if any of these men had been present in a GCA? You'd end up with some RL version of Palpatine. Except that it's not a Lucas crapfest, it's real life, with no recourse available to those under a worldwide hobnailed boot. No nations who believe in freedom to liberate the oppressed, no rebels in X-wing fighters, no Luke Skywalker, just another numbered entity farther down the chaingang in the same boat as you. quote>

I like Star Wars as much as the next person but I don't see Darth Vader breathing down our hallway. Let's reel it in and talk about this universe, not one that is long ago and far away.

If you build it, they will come. If you put up a global city hall, the corrupt *insert favorite corrupt politician here* will find a way into the big office, that's a certainty. Checks and balances can be swept aside for the right candidate (Hitler, Chavez, etc) and then where are we at? quote>

Who is sweeping aside checks and balances now? I know many countries who are attached to them in one form or another. Many people know enough about dictators that they aren't going to just sign up to be under one.

There is nothing a GCA could offer the US that's worth trading sovereignty and the national right of self-determination for, we'd be on the losing end every single time. quote>

I agree with you here. or, to put it more accurately, I certainly haven't seen anything yet nor do I expect to in the near future.

The US government has held that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and we will not agree to anything that supercedes it. The Geneva convention, for instance, does not contradict the Constitution. So far, so good but then we screwed up: we claimed that it applies to us and only us and we can treat anyone else however the hell we want to and are under no obligation to offer anyone else anything resembling Constitutional protection.

How long do you think the rest of the world is going to put up with that? Don't get me wrong; the Constitution is my favorite document on the planet. But this approach of saying "nah, nah, we have it, you don't, so we get to spit in your face" is going to backfire big time.

Then comes the quibbling over how that loot is divided... better bone up on concepts like redistribution of wealth, as poor people in another hemisphere need your money more than you do. You rich American swine! How dare you eat when others can't. You should be so ashamed, you'd want to pay even more than you do now. Then maybe West Tierra del Bumbledork can afford an internet connection, like you rich greedy Americans. Don't believe me? Watch. quote>

The simple truth is that there are not enough resources on the planet for everyone to live the way Americans do. Our standard of living has been significantly higher than much of the planet. (Any American who questions that, go watch Slumdog Millionaire. We have nothing like the vast neighborhood where those kids came from.)

Things will, eventually, "even out". I believe it will happen via natural market forces, like we were talking about earlier regarding the factory in Belize. I am not anticipating a world wide dictatorship.

an end to tobacco use, worldwide (but pot is a-ok, you sedated fool, you. As long as you paid tax on it. Because it's medicinal, you know), quote>

Neither should be smoked in public but that's another story.

a disarming of nations who still give that right to their people (because you're really stupid and don't understand what we want to do for you, so you might fight it) and, quote>

As much as I dislike guns, I do support the right to own them.

enforcing politically correct speech (because it's not a Utopia if it's not a Utopia for everyone, you know. Utopians don't give negative vibes to each other, it clouds the chakra.).quote>

Chakras. It's plural, unless you are referring to one in particular. and you are skating the line when it comes to insulting other people's spiritual beliefs.

It's already a Federal crime in the US to think hateful thoughts about someone's race or nationality while you kill them, and it's a far worse crime than killing them for their car, wallet, or jellybean collection. That's Orwell in a nutshell; being prosecuted for what you were thinking. It will be global law, mark my words.quote>

Actually, hate crimes laws are about why you did it, not what you were thinking. They can't actually tell what you are thinking.

All societies and civilizations fall. No political structure lasts forever, not ours and the not the one now growing in China. When the New Noble Experiment crashes and burns as it must eventually, the economic consequences will be unprecedented. But this post is too long already and I'm at the end of my day, so I'll be back (duh).

quote>

Can't argue with you there.

Barbarossa · August 18, 2009

.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa

LarksTonguesInAspic · August 19, 2009

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: manticorefan

When I decry globalization, I refer to the political aspect. The slow, inexorable, inevitable drift towards a Global Government. It's not a paranoid delusion . . .

No, it's not a paranoid delusion. It is indeed a slow, inexorable, and inevitable drift. Which means it isn't going to happen anytime soon. There are too many things that the 7 billion of us disagree on for it to happen anytime quickly.quote>

quote>

Meg · August 19, 2009

Originally posted by: manticorefan

I have done my research... double and triple-checked parameters... audited root sources... and I have the opinion it will happen sooner than most realize, probably within my lifetime.quote>

Okay, I'll bite. What are these parameters and root sources?

Large banks, mostly. The major banking houses of Europe run the Federal Reserve (which I reiterate is a foreign-owned, for-profit corporation, in receivership of the bankrupt US gov't). Yeah, I know, we've heard all this conspiracy-theory stuff before. But the fact remains, our currency is tightly controlled by a relatively few unelected pointy heads as an ATM for a select few institutions, and of course their personal fortunes. quote>

It is interesting that, when talking about a "mixed ownership, quasi-government" agency, no one can quite define what "mixed ownership" means.

LOL at least you admit it. quote>

What did I admit? That there are financial insiders that know more than the rest of us? Of course there are.

But could you foresee a scenario where it is put to an end by decree or law? C'mon, it's not a real stretch. They just made the ban on naked short-selling permanent. Forex and/or derivatives traders are just the type of people the Nazis hated; socialists of both left and right would put an end to a significant portion of the financial industry. quote>

Can I foresee a ban on forex trading? Sure, I can. I can imagine a ban on any kind of financial transaction that doesn't involve actual work. But how did we get over to Nazis? We were talking about those "economic slave masters", the unelected financial types who make decisions about currrency. A global currency would reduce their power, not increase it.

There are no one-size-fits-all rules. and there are not going to be anytime soon.quote>

Define "soon". Years, decades, millenia? Us older people know, decades go by in a blink.quote>

Yes, us older people do know that decades can go by in a blink. But, during those decades, the pendulum swings back and forth, never stopped at a reasonable midpoint and never resting at either extreme.

My point is, anywhere a large concentration of power is, those who seek power for their own gain will be also. In RL, the good guys rarely come to the rescue. Restraining the size of centralized authority (like state's rights) by default limits the damage a dictator can do. There will always be a counterbalance holding some of the cards. Not putting all your eggs in one basket is good governance, not just good investment advice. It leaves a stopgap in case someone gets too big for their britches.quote>

Agreed.

I am not anticipating a world wide dictatorship.quote>

Well of course not. If the general public were, it could be prevented. It's only a few who see any dictatorship coming and try to warn people. The rest feel disillusioned and duped after it's too late.

As you may know, no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!quote>

Actually, the dictatorship that has concerned me is not a global, financial one but an American, religious one. It troubles me greatly that some people are trying to rewrite our history to suit their own religious beliefs. But that's a different topic.

So no smoking outside either? Hmm. If one's own home is the only place they can smoke, how long do you think it would take before tobacco smoking in one's own home would be outlawed? My bet is less than 5 years.quote>

Last I heard, smoking outside was banned in most of Utah but the tobacco police were not busting down people's doors to see if they were smoking at home.

Chakras. It's plural, unless you are referring to one in particular. and you are skating the line when it comes to insulting other people's spiritual beliefs. quote>

One person's sarcasm, another's insult. But thank you for underlining my exact point.quote>

The exact point being what? That it's unreasonable for people to expect some basic politeness and common courtesy?

What hate crime laws are is a trivialization of ordinary everyday brutal murders, assaults, etc.

If the why is classified as hate by someone whose job is to do just such a thing, that is, determine intent including state of mind. If, for their own ambitions, they are quick to jump to that conclusion, the whole thing gets elevated and there are enhanced penalties. Meanwhile, an *insert most tragic story that day* gets killed for their Social Security check, justice is somehow less concerned because their race wasn't involved. The crime didn't change, but the reactionary treatment of the case does. It's a twisted affirmative action for criminals, with special consideration of race issues a given. quote>

If someone gets mugged for the social security check (which they don't anymore; it's direct deposited but let's not quibble), I agree that it shouldn't matter what the muggee looks like. The mugger is going after cash based on the fact that they perceive it to be available to him.

Which is entirely different from a case like Matthew Shepard. There is no question in my mind that it is wrong to tie someone to a fence and beat and torture him until he dies. The difference here is that the reason they were beating and torturing him in the first place is because they didn't like part of his demographic profile. That isn't a case of "oh, he happens to be gay"; it's a case of "they attacked him because he was".

The issue of "intention" is involved in many legal charges. When I was on jury duty, we had to decide on a various of charges. The difference between second degree physical assault and first degree physical assualt was "intention". We had already decided he was guilty of second degree physical assault but, to find him guilty of first degree, we had to find that he intended to commit the crimes.

Thing was, we had absolutely nothing to go on regarding his intention. We could imagine two different reasons why someone would do what he did: a) he was an evil bleepity-bleep who somehow thought it was appropriate to act the way he did or b) he was on drugs and had no fricking clue what he was doing. But we had nothing whatsoever to lean towards a or b. So we had to find him not guilty of first degree assault.

Duke87 · August 19, 2009

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: manticorefan

One person's sarcasm, another's insult. But thank you for underlining my exact point.quote>

The exact point being what? That it's unreasonable for people to expect some basic politeness and common courtesy?quote>

That people always get far too uptight and worried about who's offended by something. Words which are, more often than not, spoken with no malice, are a trivial matter, yet people go crazy about how politically incorrect they are as opposed to concerning themselves with more important things.

Some of us are absolutely sick of it and intentionally use politically incorrect terms in defiance of it. And if someone gets offended, we tell them they need to chill out and not be so sensitive. Because really, it's ridiculous. Sticks and stones, people.

Point being, if someone is offended by manticorefan's chakra comment, the problem is not that manticorefan said something he shouldn't have (which he didn't), the problem is that the person taking offense has their panties way too bunched up.

My counter to the idea that we could all get along better if we'd stop using insulting terms for each other is that we could all get along better if we stopped taking so much issue with those terms.

If someone gets mugged for the social security check (which they don't anymore; it's direct deposited but let's not quibble), I agree that it shouldn't matter what the muggee looks like. The mugger is going after cash based on the fact that they perceive it to be available to him.

Which is entirely different from a case like Matthew Shepard. There is no question in my mind that it is wrong to tie someone to a fence and beat and torture him until he dies. The difference here is that the reason they were beating and torturing him in the first place is because they didn't like part of his demographic profile. That isn't a case of "oh, he happens to be gay"; it's a case of "they attacked him because he was".

The issue of "intention" is involved in many legal charges. When I was on jury duty, we had to decide on a various of charges. The difference between second degree physical assault and first degree physical assualt was "intention". We had already decided he was guilty of second degree physical assault but, to find him guilty of first degree, we had to find that he intended to commit the crimes. quote>

Intent and motive are important. No one said they weren't.

But, to take Matther Shepard for an example, to say "they killed him because he was gay" is to oversimplify it. They killed him because they hated him. They may have hated him because he was gay, but they could have just as easily hated him for any number of other reasons and it would be no different.

And yet, if you hate someone because they perform late term abortions, or because they're a member of the military, or because they slept with your wife, or because they're ugly, or whatever, it's not thought of as a "hate crime".

That I don't like.

I also don't like legislating it as something special. Let the courts look at things case by case and determine penalties as appropriate. No hate crime laws are necessary for that.

Meg · August 20, 2009

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: manticorefan

One person's sarcasm, another's insult. But thank you for underlining my exact point.quote>

The exact point being what? That it's unreasonable for people to expect some basic politeness and common courtesy?quote>

That people always get far too uptight and worried about who's offended by something. Words which are, more often than not, spoken with no malice, are a trivial matter, yet people go crazy about how politically incorrect they are as opposed to concerning themselves with more important things.

Some of us are absolutely sick of it and intentionally use politically incorrect terms in defiance of it. And if someone gets offended, we tell them they need to chill out and not be so sensitive. Because really, it's ridiculous. Sticks and stones, people.

Point being, if someone is offended by manticorefan's chakra comment, the problem is not that manticorefan said something he shouldn't have (which he didn't), the problem is that the person taking offense has their panties way too bunched up.

My counter to the idea that we could all get along better if we'd stop using insulting terms for each other is that we could all get along better if we stopped taking so much issue with those terms. quote>

To some extent, I agree with you. Life would go easier if everyone just chilled out a bit.

But it has to go both ways. If I had made a sarcastic comment about how some people had no compassion because they were too focused on their guns and religion, I imagine some people in this conversation would get offended.

In order to keep these discussions from degenerating into flamefests, we need to discuss the issues, not each other. Yes, it can be highly tempting to make snide and sarcastic comments about someone else's point of view. But that invites snide and sarcastic comments back and soon people are too busy sniping at each other to discuss things calmly.

Duke87 · August 20, 2009

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

To some extent, I agree with you. Life would go easier if everyone just chilled out a bit.

But it has to go both ways. If I had made a sarcastic comment about how some people had no compassion because they were too focused on their guns and religion, I imagine some people in this conversation would get offended.

In order to keep these discussions from degenerating into flamefests, we need to discuss the issues, not each other. Yes, it can be highly tempting to make snide and sarcastic comments about someone else's point of view. But that invites snide and sarcastic comments back and soon people are too busy sniping at each other to discuss things calmly.quote>

It's true, some "offensive" comments are totally harmless, others are actually uncalled for in the current social situation. Knowing which is which can be a fine art.

Even then, though, calmly informing the person they've stepped over a line and should not go so far in the future is a much more civil way of handling it when someone says something nasty compared to going crazy yelling and screaming about how they're a despicable human being who has no respect for people, which is more the reaction you tend to get from the sort of folks who obsess over political correctness.

So, yeah, it goes both ways.

LarksTonguesInAspic · August 21, 2009

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: manticorefan

I have done my research... double and triple-checked parameters... audited root sources... and I have the opinion it will happen sooner than most realize, probably within my lifetime.

Okay, I'll bite. What are these parameters and root sources?

quote>

Meg · August 21, 2009

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Without going into detail overload, over the past 20 years or more I have read an enormous amount on the subject from virtually every available POV. Many I did not agree with in the slightest, but they all have a common thread leading to a point. From the Mahdi of Islam, to Theosophy's 'Ascended Masters', to Native American Shamanism and a certain London resident called Benjamin Creme and/or Matreiya, one thing is clear. A majority of non-Christian religions believe their 'Savior' is thisclose to bursting onto the world scene. All he's waiting for is a natural cataclysm to threaten humanity into coming together, under his wise and capable leadership. quote>

ah. That mystical moment where we all collectively slap ourselves upside our heads and realize we don't have to be self-centered egotists out to put the other guy down. Yes, many spiritual beliefs do include some version of that scenario. I'm not aware that any of them see it as political. It is usually couched in terms of a spiritual awakening.

btw, what you describe used to be the common Christian version of the "Second Coming" until someone created the concept of the "Rapture" where believers are removed instead of coming together with everyone else. Oddly, the idea of the rapture has caught on despite the fact that its Biblical support is shaky at best.

Then everything will be great, and then we'll share the land, that they'll be givin' away, when we all live together (you know the song I'm sure). What do you think John Lennon was talking about in Imagine? No countries, no religion... sounds like the old USSR. Except he got the religion part wrong. But I will go more into that at a later point.quote>

I think John Lennon was on drugs. I also think that he believed that religion was one of the more destructive forces on the planet. and there is an argument to be made there.

What did I admit? That there are financial insiders that know more than the rest of us? Of course there are.quote>

No, I meant admit that you do no work for itquote>

.

ah. Yes, forex traders are doing research and playing musical money but they are not doing or financing any actual work. At least stock holders are providing some working capital to those who are actually producing something.

Not if the goal of a GCA is socialism. That would make it necessary. Control isn't quite itself unless it's striving to be complete, sociologically speaking. In order to pull off the whole scheme, there is a need for both invasiveness and pervasiveness (anywhere and everywhere). It also intensely hates competition.quote>

Remind me again . . . who is trying to pull off this whole scheme?

Actually, the dictatorship that has concerned me is not a global, financial one but an American, religious one. It troubles me greatly that some people are trying to rewrite our history to suit their own religious beliefs. But that's a different topic. quote>

Well, hang on a minute there. The American people aren't nearly religious enough to go that route, IMO. Not yet anyway. But I'll get back to that point. quote>

I hope you are correct. It does concern me greatly that there is movement in this direction. Some school kids are being forced to write essays explaining how our Founding Fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation. That is clearly not the case. Many of them wouldn’t even qualify as Christians by the standards of the people subjecting their kids to this misinformation.

It bothers me too, when the President tells me what our 'moral duty' is. I refer of course, to OFL and his declaration that we have a moral duty to give healthcare to everyone. quote>

OFL? Perhaps you could explain your acronyms to those not familiar with them.

But I do agree with you that our leaders should not speak in religious terms. I cringed when Bush described the Iraq war as a “crusade”. He quickly back pedaled on it but we are still paying the price for that remark.

I see no such duty for our gov't, and am tired of people forcing their religious views onto my time-accepted view of the role of gov't. quote>

Well, let’s go back to the source:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.quote>

Reading that, one could argue that “promoting the general welfare” is on par with “providing for the common defense”. They are, after all, mentioned right up top in the same sentence.

Boy it feels good to turn that one aroundquote>

err . . . I thought we just agreed that keeping religion out of government is a good thing. or am I missing something?

. . . It's quite easy to build a colorblind society, just actually be colorblind. quote>

Easier said than done. But it does seem to me that as long as we are talking about the first African-American this or the first Latino-American that, we are making a point of not being colorblind. At some point, we need to get past making a big who-ha about someone’s ethnic and racial background. But we all know that we are not colorblind yet.

Meg · August 21, 2009