Pangloss

I really meant that I think dividing the world into national regions and relegating and separating people according to national identity is just as artificial as any other human cultural institution.

Pretty much. I guess it's a shame that not all people share the same core values, which might allow the removal of those borders. You can wax philosophical all you like, but you go right on ahead and remove those borders and then you can figure out how to deal with the Taliban.

Not everyone wants to just get along.

When you say you're not interested in a discussion of "idyllic utopias," does that mean you would prefer to discuss oppressive dystopia?

False dichotomy. Those are not the only two types of society in existence today.

I note that you haven't responded to my point that there are no mainstream political groups in the United States that are opposed to immigration.

There are lots of arguments you could put up here regarding that woman's testimony, but that's not the point. She's not an expert on firearms tactics, and her testimony isn't useful for supporting absolutes. The point is simply to counter excessive, exaggerated arguments for gun control, given that guns are already legal. And it works just fine on that level.

What I can't think of is a valid reason why economic impact would factor into consideration for a Food Stamp program.

It's usually not a conscious-movement as much as realpolitik (if I'm using that word right). It's just a sub-conscious assumption people make about whether it is natural or repressive for the world to be separated and policed into national or other regions.

Uh huh. What you really mean is that some people ascribe motives to their statements and actions that may or may not accurately reflect the accused.

I believe in a secure border, and I'm not going to accept responsibility for someone else deciding erroneously that I am opposed to immigration. That's a YP, not an MP.

Why should people be segregated according to political beliefs?

The political context I was referring to is highlighted by the need for national defense, which answers your question. If you want to talk about that perception being in error, we can do that. I'm not really interested in a discussion about idyllic utopias, though.

Glad you're okay. Thanks for the report, that was interesting.

The problem you get into by only controlling the choices of people using food stamps is that they get stigmatized and feel second-class because they are not allowed to consume products that seem to be higher quality, although they may not be.

I don't see why it's my fault that they're erecting additional psychological barriers for themselves that I certainly didn't put in place. The idea of rules is to prevent abuse of a temporary aid program. If they don't like the rules, they can get off the program.

I've personally seen people waltz through unimaginable adversity to achieve success. Students who get four hours of sleep between two jobs and coming two school, and still get every homework assignment and extra credit done on time -- THAT's how you behave when you're on welfare. Feeling "stigmatized" because you have to buy "cola" instead of "Coca-Cola" is not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.

I use the term, "anti-migration" to generally refer to people or ideologies who believe the world should be divided into relatively separated regions.

Okay. I know of no mainstream movement to that effect in American politics.

So my point is that regardless of whether US "anti-migration" citizens hate you or not, why would you want to contribute to their economic prosperity if they restrict your ability to migrate and work freely in "their regions?"

For the paycheck.

And I am aware of no restrictions on movement within this country. Nor is the national boundary in place in order to restrict the movement of workers. If you want to talk about whether national boundaries should ultimately be merged to reflect economic realities, fine, we can talk about that, but there is a political context to those boundaries too.

True, but I'm talking about boycotting jobs that add value to US consumer products and make money for US investors and workers.

Like the products I buy that are made in China and benefit a socialist economy?

I don't see why I should boycott their products just because I am benefitting their economies. I like their products, I buy them. What's the problem?

I love polls, 50% of everyone thinks everyone else is crazy....

How do you feel that that applies in this case?

I don't accept the notion that you appear to put forth in your statement that campaigns against illegal immigrants are "anti-immigrant". Just as liberals get angry at being called "unpatriotic", conservatives get angry at being labeled "anti-immigrant". These stereotypes are unhelpful and get in the way of constructive discourse.

And I think this reframes your question, too. It's not a matter of immigrants being rejected, it's a matter of them not understanding the argument.

And finally, the question of whether workers in any country "participate in economic activities" was never a political one anyway. They're there for a paycheck, not to make an ideological statement. The people who work in Mexican factories producing goods for American markets are not slave labor, lemur, they're a paid workforce chasing their own dreams.

Interesting poll out today.

Most Americans reject the idea that inflammatory political language by conservatives should be part of the debate about the forces behind the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and a congresswoman in critical condition, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

 

A 53% majority of those surveyed call that analysis mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad. About a third, 35%, say it is a legitimate point about how dangerous language can be.

In the poll, the public is precisely evenly divided on whether the heated language generally used in politics today was a factor in the shooting: 42% say yes, 42% say no. Another 15% have no opinion.

This is also interesting:

Most of those surveyed see inflammatory language being used by both Republicans and Democrats. And the Tea Party movement gets slightly less blame than the two major parties, although the difference is too small to be statistically significant.

 

Fifty-three percent say Republicans and their supporters have gone too far in using inflammatory language; 51% say that of Democrats; 49% say it of Tea Party supporters.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-12-poll-ariz-shooting_N.htm

The way I read these somewhat conflicting results is that the people generally agree with the point about violent rhetoric, but are overwhelmingly tired of being manipulated by political pundits. This blame game fell into an existing narration that the mainstream left has it in for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Movement, and will stop at nothing to shut down any dissent. It also strikes me as a clear signal that people's trust in the media is almost as bad as their trust in government right now. They listen to what outlets like NBC, CBS and the New York Times say, and then immediately reverse it and believe the opposite.

I don't think the New York Times or Paul Krugman could have picked a better way to bump Sarah Palin's approval ratings, and I'll bet those ratings are soaring right now. Yeesh.

I think it's also important to notice how the different outlets responded to this situation. The New York Times pronounced the American people wrong and stupid, thereby making itself part of the story, and in a very inflammatory way. Fox News, on the other hand, stayed out of the firing line, focusing on complimentary analysis that turned the heat down and asked what can be done better in the future. Yeah they'll blow it up later, especially now that they have another fun thing to throw at liberals, but in the initial aftermath Fox News reacted better. That's why they keep coming out on top.

Fox News isn't a controlling influence, it's a reactionary one. They have a better feel for the American pulse right now, so they're responding better than older institutions like the New York Times.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County (which is adjacent to Pima county, where the shooting took place) was on Bill O'Reilly tonight in an absolutely flame-strewn interview that practically set my television on fire. He came on to accuse Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who's been all over the airwaves since the shooting, of politicizing the event (hehe, I guess Arpaio would know!). Dupnik, of course, is the one who ignited this firestorm over whether the "hard right" (in his words) are partly responsible for this incident due to violent rhetoric.

The most stunning moment was when Arpaio, who is frequently protested against because of his stance in favor of Arizona's new immigration law (Dupnik, btw, is opposed and has vowed not to enforce it), accused Dupnik of having his own people arrange to have Sheriff Arpaio beaten in effigy during a visit Arpaio made to the area. Wow!

No evidence was provided, but I suppose someone had to inflame them, if we go by the liberal meme that misguided extremists must be too stupid to think for themselves. O'Reilly also made the point that he himself is a frequent target of death threats, and has to maintain 24-hour security. Gee.

I found an article on the incident here:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/07/15/90939-denogean-protesters-as-offensive-as-sheriff-arpaio/

The piñata, with a picture of Arpaio’s face taped or glued to the head, was clad in a sheriff’s uniform and equipped with pink handcuffs. One woman held up the piñata, while teenage protesters took turns bashing it with sticks. The Tucson Citizen ran a picture the next day of a teenage boy carting away the remains of the beheaded piñata.

----------

Let's take a look at a few more examples of "violent rhetoric", shall we?

President Obama, quoting The Untouchables: "If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun". (That's "the Chicago way", right?)

Below are a bunch from Michelle Malkin, who I'm not a big fan of (way too partisan), but she has a Big Gulp-sized collection of violent liberal rhetoric so it's worth sampling a bit of it. The full collection can be viewed here.

Cool. Why?

The Taliban wasn't going to cooperate. Ever. Afghanistan's one and only chance for peaceful coexistence in the community of nations is the one you've seen played out over the last ten years. No reasonable analysis, anywhere, has ever provided a path that's more likely to succeed than the one they're on right now.

I think your argument makes more sense with regard to Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration should have paid more attention to reports from weapons inspectors than the faulty intelligence he was receiving, and continued to wait.

A new explanation for Loughner's actions appeared in the media today. It's our old friend lucid dreaming. Oh dear.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jared-lee-loughner-lucid-dreams-alleged-arizona-shooter/story?id=12585475

So, could Loughner have believed he was dreaming when he allegedly attacked?

 

"Of course nobody knows for sure," said Schwartz

Jon Stewart last night: "I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine."

This thread hasn't been discussing inflammatory rhetoric. You're the only one who has brought that up. We're discussing violent rhetoric.

I brought it up because it's relevant. I supported my case in my previous post -- society is already conflating the issue.

It doesn't help that your "violent rhetoric" apparently includes highly generalized metaphors with numerous meanings that when interpreted by any sane person, so far as we have seen, are harmlessly motivational. I can understand why you think we should amend speech because of the actions of the insane, I just think your concerns are misplaced and trivial. Pundit theater is just theater, the real danger is divisive impact on public opinion, not silly, immature imagery aimed at motivating door-to-door poll workers.

But slip-sliding the blame dynamic from "violent" to "inflammatory", THAT's a serious concern. Once we start categorizing any opposition as being a cause for violence, and compliant people as doing the right thing, we might as well all hitch ourselves to the wagon and start beggin' massa for scraps of food.

From today's New York Times:

...it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?_r=1&_...

The US participated in humanitarian missions all over the world long before 9/11.

Well that's the thing, now we're going to have to listen to all manner of "yeah, just like the time when" comparisons. Krugman posted a longer editorial yesterday that immediately prompted hundreds of user comments (no surprise there), and I noticed that one of them said something along the lines of "Bill O'Reilly is doing the same thing with his comments on abortion doctors killing babies".

Krugman himself directly invited that comment when he stated in his piece that Bill O'Reilly was one of those who has been inciting violence, though he wasn't as specific.

Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

I don't know about Beck, but I've never heard O'Reilly joke about shooting government officials.

Anyway, getting back to the point, with regard to Palin he used the phrase "Mission Accomplished". I agree that's not the same as "don't retreat - RELOAD", but aren't those kinds of accusations just as inflammatory and inciting as "baby killer"?

One man's valid political commentary is another man's "inflammatory rhetoric".

-----------

BTW, just to throw fuel on the fire, the Westerboro Baptist Church loons are planning to protest the funerals of the victims. And it looks like there will be another court fight over their right to do that. (sigh)

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/?hpt=Mid

Or we could look at rhetoric like "second amendment remedies," "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will," or any of the various suggestions that we assassinate Julian Assange. Actual rhetoric involving personal violence.

So, as with your post directly stating that crosshairs imply violence, you're again giving specific examples without providing a usable guidelines that will likely be recognizable BEFORE the slogan is written. It's easy to say "that's inflammatory" in hindsight. Much harder to provide a guiding principle. This is the point I was trying to make before.

And, by the way, there's no evidence that this incident was influenced in any way by any such rhetoric.

Sure fits in the elitist meme about the average American being too stupid for their own good, though. If you really want to talk about inflammatory rhetoric, perhaps we could start right there.

Isn't that what you said? Bullseye okay, crosshairs bad? I don't think you're mistaken in your analysis, I just think it's amusing that we're going to parse political rhetoric at that level of detail. Gotta get at those "root causes", right?

I don't think I'm going to be the only one who finds that amusing, either. The very first time someone puts out guidelines on this it's going to become instant fodder for the late-night talk-show hosts.

Let's see if we can come up with some effective guidelines for acceptable rhetoric, shall we? I'll start with a few frequently-cited points:

- Finger-pointing

- Use of the words "holocaust", "armageddon", "disaster", or "apocalypse" in any political analogy

- Photos of nuclear bombs going off

Bear in mind that we have to apply these rules to the media and its punditry too, which of course enjoys far more frequent viewership than any politician's speech or town hall meeting.

Pangloss: The fact that Britain and the Soviet Union also had another reason for invading Iran in 1941 ... does not mean that they didn't also want the oil.

Yes, they took oil from a Nazi ally and used it to fight Hitler. And promptly gave it back to them at the end of the war.

You note that OPEC came into existence to control oil prices by preventing overproduction, but the ultimate question to ask is why it was possible for these nations to do that? It was possible because they were not under colonial/military control of First World powers as they had been up until the decolonizations from the end of World War II to circa 1960.

Sure sure, victory of the common man over the violent colonialist oppressor. And yet poverty remains. Go figure.

You go ahead and spin all the history you like, Marat. I'm just correcting the errors.

"tu quoque" issues aside, a bullseye and crosshairs are not interchangeable imagery. A bullseye represents an inanimate target. A crosshair is what you see when you aim a gun through a scope. Also, at least in the 2004 map above, the targets represent states, not individuals.

Okay, so, a bullseye is acceptable and a crosshairs is not. Got it.

Someone's writing these rules down, right?

Thanks for the article, Cap'n. I just pasted several paragraphs of it into an inter-office email that I expect is going to raise a few eyebrows at work in the morning. There's some fascinating between-the-lines stuff there on page 3 about the way that community college handled his case. We've had cases where we removed students, but only after overt threats (like a bomb scare). Results in borderline cases usually range from need-for-improvement recommendations to psych evaluations, but not expulsion. Apparently this school had the same general practice, but somehow actually talked him into quitting and then slapped a psych requirement on any future readmission. That's pretty proactive thinking, and I'll bet a few backs are going to be patted on that campus tomorrow morning.

I worry a lot about stuff like this. Loughner doesn't seem all that different from some of the kids I see every day. It doesn't seem like a very long trip from ranting on Facebook and YouTube to pulling out a Glock at a supermarket.

---------

BTW, here's Gabby Giffords' On the Issues rating. Being in a conservative state it's probably not surprising that she's pretty moderate. She's pro-gun ownership, and in fact I read somewhere that she owns the same model Glock that was used in the incident. She's also pretty tough on immigration, being a supporter of Federal troops on the border, though she was opposed to 1070.

Of course the price of oil used to be low because of military power. The reason why it used to be cheap was that the oil of the Third World was owned by the First World colonial powers, whose control was ultimately based on military power.

That's not correct. Historically when the price of oil is low it's because of oversupply. I would refer you to the Pulitzer-winning "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin for starters. Oil drilling is frequently cited as an example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This was also part of the reasoning behind the creation of OPEC -- to control supply in order to prevent another repetition of the oversupply crash cycles that so plagued the early industry.

Insofar as the First World did not own the Third World's oil supplies, it invaded those countries and stole them, as Britain and the Soviet Union did in their joint invasion of Iran in 1941. The present-day oil producing areas that were not colonized at the time, such as Saudi Arabia, were also not yet oil produces, since the oil reserves there were only exploited after the Second World War.

Yeah that's a nice theory, so long as the casual observer overlooks the date. The Shah was sympathetic with the Nazi cause. Persians are Aryans, not Semitics like most of their Arab and Jewish neighbors, and there was an obvious identification with that whole master-race god complex thing going on. The Nazi movement had a foothold there that continued after the war and even (albeit rarely) still crops up today.

The Persian word for Aryan, by the way, is "Iran".

(Not to suggest that mainstream modern Persians are Nazis, of course, I've just always thought that fact interesting, not to mention little-recognized in the West.)

Anyway, one of the outcomes of that invasion is that Hitler had virtually zero access to petroleum for the remainder of the war. Germany actually *manufactured* its petrol during most of the war (which made for some rather obvious bomber targets). Another outcome is that it provided the Soviets with oil to fight Hitler with.

Sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

But even if you look seriously at Pangloss' list of horrors

Actually that was just a page from the history books. My actual list of horrors contains mainly zombie apocalypse scenarios and Golan Globus movies from the 1980s.

Saddam only wanted Kuwait because it was sucking oil out from under Iraq with its drilling and had always been part of the same administrative unit as Iraq during the Ottoman Empire.

So Saddam was justified? Wow, I guess it's just too bad for the Kuwaitis, huh?

Even if we do need natural resources which are located elsewhere in the world, are these really worth what we pay for our military, given that for those natural resources to have much value to those possessing them they ultimately have to be sold to countries, like the U.S., that are willing and able to buy them?

So your advice is not to help our friends when they're invaded because it's too expensive?

The prices might go up, but perhaps if you calculate the total increase in price it would turn out to be less than the massive cost of having a military large enough to keep those prices down.

Or... perhaps they wouldn't. Got any data?