America's Future (?)

The majority of Americans believe both Democrats and Republicans fail to have a plan for this country, fail to lead this country in the right direction, and fail to solve this country’s problems, as revealed by a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

The reason many Americans may feel the United States has no plan for the future is because we do not know where we are going. In the past, we had goals, we had visions. Whether our energy was directed towards Westward expansion, the Space Race, building a vast infrastructure, or designing state of the art technology, we had the hunger to be second to none in the world. Now our appetite appears to be satisfied via immediate gratification selected from our vast leisure and entertainment industry.

The cataclysmic changes to the future of the United States will be based on its immigration trends and demographic shifts. Harvard University scholars agree. Samuel P. Huntington's Who Are We and Juan Enriquez's The Untied States of America both understand that it is the massive flood of unassimilated legal and illegal immigration alike which causes multiculturalism and therefore could cause the balkanization of the United States. It seems trivial spending time and energy negotiating tax reform or gay marriage when a single issue threatens to collapse this country. Pat Buchanan writes in Where the Right Went Wrong:

America's native-born population has ceased to grow. Its birth rate has fallen below replacement levels. U.S. population growth now comes from immigrants, legal and illegal, from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The religious, ethnic, and racial composition of the country, a child of Europe, is changing more rapidly than that of any other great nation in history in an era when race, religion, and ethnicity are tearing countries apart. The melting pot no longer works its magic. Newcomers are not assimilating. We are becoming what Theodore Roosevelt warned against our ever becoming - "a polyglot boardinghouse for the world."

Our future hangs in the balance.

Posted by Mike Tate at February 26, 2006 9:04 PM
Comments
Comment #129755

The reason that the Republicans and Democrats aren’t leading this Country in the right direction is because both patires are libral.
There aint two true conservitives in the whole Republican party. And their aint one at all in the Democrat.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 26, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #129758

Ron Brown,

You’ve got a major point. The Republican Party has abandoned its conservative principles for “neo-conservatism.”

Posted by: Mike Tate at February 26, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #129761

neocons were originally liberals - really, they still are, and in all the worst ways.

Posted by: diogenes at February 26, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #129764

Diogenes

Don’t mean to step on your label making again, but original neocons were indeed former leftists. This happened when they realized that their leftist ideas were bankrupt, but it happened in the 1960s and 1970s. So a neocon under the age of about 55 was likely never a liberal.

People carry ideas; ideas don’t carry people. We probably differ on that concept too.

Mike

The problem for most modern countries is low birthrate. That is the bottom line. The U.S. is not the most affected and it seems to be spreading. Growth rates are dropping even in places like Mexico and Brazil AND, most interesting to me, recently in Iran.

The question for America in the short term is “Do we have to create Americans by birth or can we make them.” For most of our history we have done both. How many of us had ancestors in the original thirteen colonies? Most of us are galvanized Americans.

Each generation of Americans worries that this time it will be different. Someday it may be. But I live in Fairfax County VA. It is one of the most diverse places in the U.S. We have a lot of people who don’t look like me and a lot of people who speak in ways I have trouble understanding, but when I go to homeowner meetings, or canvass for a candidate or speak to the guys at the gas station, I find that most seem to be Americans.

Posted by: Jack at February 26, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #129765

Yet another anti-immigrant fear-mongering post from Mike Tate.

Do you have anything else to say, Mike? Your one note is getting flat.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 26, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #129766

“America’s native-born population has ceased to grow.”

You are a very funny man, Mike Tate. Unless you are talking about Native Americans, the US HAS no “native-born” population. The White Man stole this land from the Indians. The White Man never assimilated to this Land. He changed it to bend to his will. Every one of you is an immigrant.

I think its karma that the new immigrants are now supplanting the old White ones. Using the same tactics the White Man used on the Red Man, the Brown Races will conquer the US of A.

You should be happy, Mike Tate. Its the old Republican Mantra… “Let the Market Decide”. Right now the Market of Mother Nature says that Whitey must go.

Posted by: Aldous at February 26, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #129768

I always had trouble with this native things. The word native comes from the latin word for birth. It means where someone is born. I was born in America nearly 51 years ago. I am a native American. Anyone born in America more than 51 years ago was in America before me. Anyone less than that has been in America less.

And, Aldous, this land belongs to me as an American as much as anyone else who is an American. And you know you can argue with me about it, but I will win.

That also means to me that someone who became an American citizen yesterday is also an American like me. I don’t accept racist definitions of what it means to be an American. Nor do I like the racist tone of your post.

Posted by: Jack at February 26, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #129769

It’s taken a very long time for us (americans) to get to this point. Getting back to being a nation, that going to be a difficult process there.

Somewhere in our past we were once a melting pot, Everyone brought thier own ideas in and added it to the american culture, BUT there was a limit to it, You still learned the nations language, learned about its past and had a stake in its future. Although Back then there was this idea of majority rule, ie. if 50 ppl belived that it should be “this” way and 5 ppl belives that it should be “another way” the will of the 50 outweighed the will of the 5. And amazingly they did NOT get laywers and sue anyone.

Somehow we lost that and it is now the individual that matters, a nation of individuals is not a nation that would be consitered anarchy if everyone is doing their own thing for their own gain.

We once had a national language, English I belive it was, they taught that in the schools, and you elected to take a second language of your choice. But you were expected to know the national language as your primary, Since the books, road signs, paperwork all things were in the national language.

How can a nation bind together to acomplish anything, when we are using all of our energy to seperate outselves?

To myself the future looks bleak also. To accomplish anything there must be some level of competition. But in this day and age with such a movement to Not keep score in childhood games, tell everyone they are a winner, Not allow anyone to lose so they have something to work on , to strive for. Why do better if the minium or less than that is told that you did fine ? We have all been told sometime in our lives that we wern’t fast enough, smart enough, pretty enough, or skilled enough, so what did we do? Cry in the corner? Whine? Get a lawyer? I would wager that most of us bucked up the the challenge and worked on our failing points and tried again.

Until this nation becomes a nation again, not just a pile of special ionterests catering to their own flocks, How can there be a big picture, How can we complete a national goal? Hell how can there even be a good amount of national pride when we can’t focus past the tips of our noses?

Posted by: RHancheck at February 26, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #129773

jack,

‘label making’ is a necessary and desirable activity. without heuristics, we simply could not function in such a complex world. applying labels (especially inaccurately) is where the trouble inevitably comes in. in this instance, i did not apply any.

now then, perhaps you (self-proclaimed neocon that you are) could review the most basic tenets of conservatism, and get back to me when you find one that doesn’t diametrically conflict with your own ideology…

“People carry ideas; ideas don’t carry people. We probably differ on that concept too.”

i thoroughly encourage you to spread this message to your fellow neocons… or is this a case of, ‘do as i say, not as i do’.


Posted by: diogenes at February 26, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #129774

Aldous,

does that mean that one day, poof, the “native indian or Red man” as you put it just appeared here? Last I was taught they too immigrated from other parts of the world. The “white man” as you put it was just late to the party. Even bringing the horse to the area. Now it is true that the treatment received by the europeans was disgraceful however, it in no way means that today anyone born here is any less native. Welcome to the melting pot that originally began in europe and africa.

Posted by: Scott at February 26, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #129778

Diogenes

Heuristic - I always liked that concept. I use it with my staff when I want to do something, but I really can’t explain why.

But my current favorite is asynchronous. I use that when I don’t get around to answering my email on time. Yes, I find such labels very useful.

I don’t know about this neocon label. They seem to let me in the club and I know the secret handshake. But we don’t seem to be as consistent a group as you think and there are many different nuances.

Posted by: Jack at February 26, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #129781

LawnBoy,

I could be wrong, but I’m guessing Mike Tate
( not Hate ) is anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant. When
you pull your head out of the sand maybe you’ll
figure out that there’s a difference.

Aldous,

you waffle as much as the Ketchup King John
Kerry. In the same sentence you mention “native”
Americans, and then say…”the U.S. has no ‘native-born’ population”. You seem to be
equally confused over what an immigrant is. My
distant ancestors came to this country as
immigrants, as did most of the U.S. population.
And while I am only a small percentage of an
actual native American tribe, I AM A NATIVE-BORN
American. Apparently you and LawnBoy have a hard
time with differentiation. It must be that whole
emotions clouding reason thing.

While I don’t celebrate what my white European
ancestors did to my native American ancestors.
I realize that the “evil” white Europeans weren’t
the first, and won’t be the last SETTLERS to also
conquer and/or civilize a country or a continent.
This has been been the way of the world for
thousands of years.

Maybe it is “karma” or the Golden Rule that the
U.S. melting pot is filling up with brown peppers.
Could be worse. Could be Canadians. Uuhhgg!!!

Posted by: Dale G. at February 26, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #129784

nuance - is that the word of the week, or what?

so, considering that you did not address my question, should i consider this latest post accidentally asynchronous, or mere pedantic prevarication.

Posted by: diogenes at February 26, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #129791

Diogenes

Was there a question?

I believe in free markets, free investment, free exchange of ideas and free people. Back in the 19th Century that would have made me a liberal. Today it means I am a conservative. Because I believe that we should be engaged in the world, I am not like the conservatives of the old Taft wing. So it is neoconservative. In most places besides the U.S. they call it neoliberal, BTW. The labels get hard to follow.

Posted by: Jack at February 27, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #129795

neolibs were originally conservatives - as i have told you before - and the two terms are not synonymous; but it really doesn’t matter, neither are conservatives (though neolibs are probably much closer).

Posted by: diogenes at February 27, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #129814

Jack:
“… someone who became an American citizen yesterday is also an American like me. I don’t accept racist definitions of what it means to be an American. Nor do I like the racist tone of your post. “

First of all, thank you Jack. Although I disagree with you personally on a few issues, I often feel you say what needs to be said. In this case, Kudos.

I believe that the fundemantal strength of Americans is the unity we share despite our stunning and sometimes seemingly insurmountable divisions.

A lot of this strength, I believe, comes from the voluntary and sometimes unconscious we give each other. When immigrants come to the United States and share in it, our nation becomes stronger. In many cases, some of our newest citizens are also some of our most dedicated ones.

Mike’s posting is a textbook example of xenophobia. Most of the nations of the world are far less diverse and far more closed to immigrants than the United States. That is exactly what makes our country so special. The USA is the prototype for a “new style” of Nation- one based on freedom, equality, and openness. I would say that we have done pretty well to date.

Furthermore, who is to say that it is the native population which has been vital to the succes of this nation. As I recall, from Africans to Germans, to Irish, to Mexicans, America has taken in wave after wave of immigrants and has become increasingly successful and diverse.

I, for one, believe that diversity is THE key to Americans success. Adapting to diversity is one of the cornerstones of our nation, and one that we have gained our strength from.

Regardless, the point has been made before and I’ll make it again that the USA is an immigrant nation. The American Indians were origionally from Mongolia. We are all immigrants here. For people on both sides of any US immigration issue, I think it’s critical to keep that in mind.

As far as racism and xenophobia go, they don’t really belong in the sphere of rational conversation (why dont you stop mongering fear and go volunteer?).

As for this:

“it is the massive flood of unassimilated legal and illegal immigration alike which causes multiculturalism and therefore could cause the balkanization of the United States.”

Do I have you correctly here? Immigration is going to be the sole cause of Balkanization in the US? That’s a big claim. You should give it a backbone.

As far as the “con vs neocon vs hysterical lib…”. Some of you amaze me. You never manage to touch on the issue at hand, but DO manage to get into semantic “nazi republican” “bedwetting liberal” crap.

We should just have a post for you guys entitled: “Who is better, Libs or Cons”?

Immigration makes us strong. Bitching makes us weak. Got it?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at February 27, 2006 6:51 AM
Comment #129815

“A lot of this strength, I believe, comes from the voluntary and sometimes unconscious we give each other.”

Whoops, that should be unconscious “support” we give each other.

My bad…

Posted by: Beijing Rob at February 27, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #129831

Beijing Rob,

It’s funny, because there is not an ounce of xenophobia in what I wrote. I merely made objective assertions.

You claim diversity is a strength. Cultural diversity is a weakness, look at Iraq… it will turn into all out civil war based on cultural divides. A country can be multi-racial if it is uni-cultural or has some “national glue” that binds it together. The United States has proved this.

Posted by: Mike Tate at February 27, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #129839
LawnBoy,

I could be wrong, but I’m guessing Mike Tate
( not Hate ) is anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant. When
you pull your head out of the sand maybe you’ll
figure out that there’s a difference.

Dale,

Apparently you didn’t read the post:

the massive flood of unassimilated legal and illegal immigration alike which causes multiculturalism and therefore could cause the balkanization of the United States.

He’s against legal immigration, too. So please, know what you’re talking about before accusing others of being ostriches.

And you’re the first person on the thread to change his last name to Hate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 27, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #129843

Mike

I depends on what you mean by diversity.

I understand that the term is often misused. It can be a code word for substandard or for a type of a racial spoils system. That is bad.

But diversity in its real form is the reason for American success.

You mention Iraq. Why is America not like Iraq (or N. Ireland, or Bosnia etc)? The answer is diversity. Those places are not really very diverse. They have two or three groups that are undigested by society. These groups can focus their hate on each other. I

n America we have hundreds of different groups and the groups tend to break down into smaller groups. There are just too many variables to keep track of. We can always find something in common with our neighbors (and probably something to dislike), so we have to see each other as individuals (Americans).

America has been very good at destroying group identities. How many second or third generation immigrants can actually speak the language of their ancestors well enough to find the bathroom at the train station? Ethnic identity in the U.S. usually means a bumber sticker and attendance at the annual pride festival. Talk is easy (as long as it is not in the supposed mother tounge.)

Whenever you are in negotiations, it is better to have many points to talk about. Every good negotiator knows that if the talks boil down to one point, it is trouble. We see that in the U.S. with black and white. This has been our biggest challenge because we have divided into two groups. The situation is improved when we bring in others to diffuse the definition, as has happened recently. So the cure for problems of diversity is often more diversity.

Of course it is possible for a country to lose its way, but America’s base culture is stronger than we think. Immigrants learn English. They participate in our culture. I got to know a recent Chinese immigrant neighbor very well because we were both Bush supporters. We met at the polling station near our house. I have to admit, I was surprised to see him there (prejudice?) but as we talked, I saw that he knew the issues better than most people. He had become an American citizen just the year before. I find that many of the most enthusiastic Americans are immigrants and their children. Unlike those of us whose families have been here a while, these guys still recall what it is like NOT to be American and they are happy to have made the change.

Posted by: Jack at February 27, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #129849

Ron Brown,

That first comment is the most rediculous i have heard EVER.

We had a president who acheived everything that was laid out by Berry Goldwater and Ronnie.

HIS NAME WAS BILL CLINTON. I guess you on the new left ae no longer true to principals but to labels else you would recognize that Clinton balansed the budget, successfully fostered growth, furthered peace through diplomacy etc.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 27, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #129893

A country can be multi-racial if it is uni-cultural or has some “national glue” that binds it together. The United States has proved this.

Posted by: Mike Tate at February 27, 2006 08:44 AM

Right! However is seems that some want to undo tha glue that holds us together. They want multi-racial and multi-cultural. It just won’t work.

RGF
You must be new here. The last thing anyone that’s been around awhile would accuse me of is being left.
Bill Clinton wouldn’t have done squat if he hadn’t of got stuck with a Republican Congress. Even then I’m suprised anything was accomplished.
And non of that alters the fact that BOTH the Republicans AND the Democrats are liberals.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 27, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #129920

RHancheck,
Thank you for your excellent post. I totally agree that our children are receiving very mixed signals about good and bad. How are they going to face problems in the future if they are not taught how to handle them now?

If one is born in America, one is a native American - if one legally immigrates to American, studies for 7 years, and passes the citizenship exam, they are also Americans. Both have the same rights, with the exception of running for President or Vice President.

RHancheck, I, however do not feel as bleak about America’s future as you appear to.

America has gone through many stages. We have moved from the rule of George III, suffered two wars to maintain our freedoms, suffered through a close call that nearly cost us our country, gone through a massive industrial revolution, fought TWO World Wars, survived a major depression, the Space age, the Westward expansion, the Cold War, the Korean Police action, the Vietnam Conflict, the Gulf War,the technology age, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, draughts, etc.

We have managed to do all these things because we have all worked together. Compromised, listened and learned together.

If we can survive the above, we can survive anything. Even the battle for power we are now experiencing.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 27, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #129950

Lawnboy is right. Every single one of this posters threads has been extremely anti-immigrant in one way or another.

RHancheck:
“Somewhere in our past we were once a melting pot,”

America has never truly been a melting pot. We’ve always been more like fruit salad or fresh salsa. That’s what makes us so delicious! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at February 27, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #129971

The real problem is irresponsible and unaccountable government (all parties) and voters that don’t care or know what to do about it. It will get resolved some day via either (a) the peaceful, responsible way, or the (b) hard, painful way (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 27, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #129976

Nothing wrong with immigration, it is legal and not excessive.
It has to be limited some.
And, we need to secure our ports and borders and stop allowing illegal trespassers to come and go as they please.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 27, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #130012

“As far as the “con vs neocon vs hysterical lib…”. Some of you amaze me. You never manage to touch on the issue at hand, but DO manage to get into semantic “nazi republican” “bedwetting liberal” crap.

We should just have a post for you guys entitled: “Who is better, Libs or Cons”?

Immigration makes us strong. Bitching makes us weak. Got it?”

with all due respect (if that phrase even applies here), our discussion of neocons *directly* concerns the topic at hand. try reading the original post before you make such offensive statements. the question you pose ‘who is better,’ is the one which we were considering, and we concluded that the answer is a resounding ‘NEITHER’.

bitching, as you so ignorantly refer to it, is in this instance debate regarding the best path of our country, and thus is directly affected by the particular ideologies of those whom run it. if you wish to address this discussion, do so - otherwise, butt out - got it?

Posted by: diogenes at February 27, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #130060

You know Republicans are getting desperate when they try to redefine the failings of their party’s leadership as liberal. That is too funny … Thanks for the laugh.

Bottom line is our direction is lost not because of liberal or conservative philosophy. It is lost because stupid and ignorant voters keep giving a free pass to reelection to a huge group of politicians who maintain and promote a corrupt political system and government for their own personal gain. It really is not any more complicated than that.

Perfect example is the whole ethics issue and the House of Representatives, where both parties have backroom agreement not to haul the other party’s members up on ethics charges. To do so would bring down a house of cards crashing on both party’s heads. This is pure personal gain driving the corruption of our system and government which knows no bounds. The voters sustain this corruption by treating political parties like superbowl football teams rooting for their side regardless of how corrupt and injurious to our nation their actions are.

If you want it to change, you must 1st vote out incumbents repsonsible for maintaining the corrupt system that now exists, 2nd you must join and support financially organizations like Common Cause and Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy so they can reach out and aggregate an anti-incumbent grass roots movement to clean out the corruption in the only way possible, at the polls.

America’s future will continue to take a back seat to personal gain and divisive politics as long as voters who are fed up with it stay home on election day, and as long as Republocrats continue to vote for their team instead of their country and its future. The Republocrat teams don’t care about your or your future or the nation’s. All they care about is that you continue to make your donations at the box office, buying the tickets to see the show and combat between the teams. History has proven that neither team ever really wins, the just play musical chairs.

Our future may write a history of these games however that reads, America and Americans lost, due to the partisan battle for power which trumped again and again government’s ability to act and respond appropriately to conditions and problems facing the nation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 27, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #130074

I agree with most people when they say we need to control our borders. Illegal immigrants, for the most part, should be deported immediately and at their (or their government’s) expense. But close our borders? We (as human beings) have no right to close our borders. Believe it or not, libs, America is still the land of opportunity. Immigrants have just as much of a right to work hard and be rewarded for it as we do.

And as to the culture:
I am sick of hearing “Bosnian-American”, “Mexican-American”, “Italian American” and “African-American”.
Everybody wins if we just say “American”. It will save Al Gore’s trees by saving paper and we, as Americans, can unite.

Pride is good, but once you call this home, you’re American.

Posted by: CommonSense at February 27, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #130076

Lawnboy,

Any rational citizen of any nation would agree that unassimilated LEGAL immigration is bad too, assimilated LEGAL immigration is what we need.

Posted by: Mike Tate at February 27, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #130084

Tate: I don’t see how any sane individual could not understand how unassimilated immigrants (legal or illegal) can and will fracture any country.

Posted by: James Chappelear at February 27, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #130087
Any rational citizen of any nation would agree that unassimilated LEGAL immigration is bad too, assimilated LEGAL immigration is what we need.

Yes, that’s an effective debating technique; define your stance as rational using CAPS LOCK for emphasis without actually defending your point of view. How on earth could anyone disagree?

BTW, you didn’t answer my question.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 27, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #130102

“You know Republicans are getting desperate when they try to redefine the failings of their party’s leadership as liberal. That is too funny … Thanks for the laugh.”

while i agree that this argument sounds laughable with merely perfunctory reflection, the underlying complaint is exactly the same as the one you are proposing - the republicans no longer champion truly conservative ideals. they are republocrats (though i personally blame the neocon faction to a large extent). consider this when you make such hostile claims as…

“Bottom line is our direction is lost not because of liberal or conservative philosophy. It is lost because stupid and ignorant voters keep giving a free pass to reelection to a huge group of politicians who maintain and promote a corrupt political system and government for their own personal gain. It really is not any more complicated than that.”

i think it is much more complicated than that. you underestimate the intelligence of the average voter - we are not stupid. perhaps ignorant… but most of us do not have time to follow politics so closely, and are therefore inclined to believe what we hear. this is admittedly a misguided tendency, but most of us have more immediate concerns.

our direction is lost *precisely* because of liberal and conservative philosophy; given the conformance of the two parties, there is none (philosophy), and that is the problem. in the current two party system, it really doesn’t matter who we vote for. voting out incumbents will provide only a momentary respite, before they, too, are corrupted by the system.

i sympathize with your frustration, but you’re unlikely to garner any support for your own cause with such demeaning remarks. i have not given up all hope; i plan to follow through with VOID. however;

the system is corrupt, and requires (i fear) more reform than anyone in a position to address it is prepared to concede . i think that most of us will continue our jaded indifference until we are so fed up that we can no longer bear it. only then will we rise up, and reclaim America.

(but here’s hoping)

Posted by: diogenes at February 27, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #130117

d.a.n
Nothing wrong with immigration, it is legal and not excessive.

Absolutely, Limited immigration can help a country by bringing new ideas and fresh blood with it.
If it weren’t for immigration I would have never met my wife. She came over here from Australia when she was 12. Prettest immigrant I’ve ever seen.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 28, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #130119

Ron,

You haven’t the slightest clue what liberalism and conservatism is. Why don’t you try reading a book instead of listening to the talking heads explain to you what liberalism and conservatism is. The Bush Administration is doing a fine job in showing what conservatism is. The entire Middle East runs under the philosophy of conservatism. Those are true examples of conservatism. Your reality is morbid.

Posted by: ha at February 28, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #130122

Diogenes,

The post is about immigration, multiculturalism, and the future of America. What does that have to do with the definition of “con/neocon/liberal” etc…? I resent the fact that such important issues can’t transcend party loyalty or emotional ties (seeing as they effect us all). I also resent the condescending tone of your posts. Don’t bash me personally because I wan’t to discuss the issue at hand and not the particular team I root for.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at February 28, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #130123

By the way, don’t use the term “we” when what you mean to say is “me personally”

Posted by: Beijing Rob at February 28, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #130128

beijing,

feel free to interpret the post whichever way suits your argument.

“I also resent the condescending tone of your posts.”

are you joking?

“Immigration makes us strong. Bitching makes us weak. Got it?”

condescend much?

“The post is about immigration, multiculturalism, and the future of America. What does that have to do with the definition of “con/neocon/liberal” etc…? “

ideology *determines* which direction a particular politician will steer our country concerning these factors - i thought this was basic knowledge (guess i was wrong).

i do not “root for” any “team” - i’m independent.
…but your apparent offense to all things neocon belies your own team colors.

“By the way, don’t use the term “we” when what you mean to say is “me personally”

… i was certainly not referring to myself… politics is what i do. so, please forgive my arrogance… but please, shut up.

Posted by: diogenes at February 28, 2006 1:42 AM
Comment #130132

Diogenes

“the question you pose ‘who is better,’ is the one which we were considering, and we concluded that the answer is a resounding ‘NEITHER’. “

which “we” are you referring to in this statement?

Regardless, the point I wish to see addressed is whether diversity and immigration are an asset or liability to our country. My ideology, and whether or not it coincides with yours on this issue is of no import. Ideology alone does not shape the future. For example, sometimes “reality” plays a role too. Go figure.

I know that politics is “what you do”, but out here in the real world, political alignment doesn’t actually determine every issue. Also, in case you’ve never noticed, politicians don’t always make the choices which determine the country. Get this, but some times the people actually do.

I think this argment has merit on its own terms. It should be discussed on its own terms with all the focus and concern it deserves. When I use the term “bitching” what I am referring to is primarily ad hominem attacks or semantic digressions which have no basis within the topic.

Probably shouln’t have used such a strong term, all apoligies.

Either way, Mr.Tate said that “Our future hangs in the balance”. That makes it sound like we (both libs and cons) are in some sort of perilous situation, and urgent actions must be taken. I want to know this:

Does anyone really believe the situation merits such a drastic comment as this? and, if so,
What measures does Mr.Tate propose we take to take a step back from the “edge”?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at February 28, 2006 2:42 AM
Comment #130133

Diogenes

“the question you pose ‘who is better,’ is the one which we were considering, and we concluded that the answer is a resounding ‘NEITHER’. “

which “we” are you referring to in this statement?

Regardless, the point I wish to see addressed is whether diversity and immigration are an asset or liability to our country. My ideology, and whether or not it coincides with yours on this issue is of no import. Ideology alone does not shape the future. For example, sometimes “reality” plays a role too. Go figure.

I know that politics is “what you do”, but out here in the real world, political alignment doesn’t actually determine every issue. Also, in case you’ve never noticed, politicians don’t always make the choices which determine the country. Get this, but some times the people actually do.

I think this argment has merit on its own terms. It should be discussed on its own terms with all the focus and concern it deserves. When I use the term “bitching” what I am referring to is primarily ad hominem attacks or semantic digressions which have no basis within the topic.

Probably shouln’t have used such a strong term, all apoligies.

Either way, Mr.Tate said that “Our future hangs in the balance”. That makes it sound like we (both libs and cons) are in some sort of perilous situation, and urgent actions must be taken. I want to know this:

Does anyone really believe the situation merits such a drastic comment as this? and, if so,
What measures does Mr.Tate propose we take to take a step back from the “edge”?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at February 28, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #130256

“The majority of Americans believe both Democrats and Republicans fail to have a plan for this country, fail to lead this country in the right direction, and fail to solve this country’s problems”

this is the aspect of the post on which i placed my focus. it is my feeling that the split on immigration is symptomatic of a larger problem. there are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the immigration issue, so i feel that the underlying matter that defines our crisis is the inability of either side to come up with *any* reasonable strategy at all…

these two parties appear to prefer posturing and partisan bickering to methodical, pragmatic consideration, and concerted action. that is my concern.

“I know that politics is “what you do”, but out here in the real world, political alignment doesn’t actually determine every issue.”

never said it did - it does, however, determine many issues, as well as frame the debate of said issues, define what exactly we regard as an ‘issue’, and as i said before, it often determines the direction we take when addressing these issues.

“which “we” are you referring to in this statement?”

i’m sure you can figure out (with a quick scan of my posts) to whom i was referring with each respective use of ‘we’.

“Ideology alone does not shape the future. For example, sometimes “reality” plays a role too. Go figure.”

you fail to notice the patronizing tone here? in the ‘real world’? where exactly do you believe me to live? if you are claiming that partisanship is inconsequential, i would suggest that you are the one experiencing a disconnect from reality.

regardless, i tire of debating the nature of this post’s topic. i have better things to do, and i have satisfied myself with my own conclusion on the matter. i do not intend to pursue any further contextual or semantic arguments which are entirely purposeless, in any case.

…and for future reference; if you feel someone has made a post that does not address your questions/concerns, feel free to disregard it. the discussions in blogs tend to vary greatly from post to post, and you should not feel obliged to comment on them all.

Posted by: diogenes at February 28, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #130340

As Demographic pushes go, ours is spectacularly gentle. This wouldn’t be such a problem if we weren’t so lazy and cheap as a culture.

Business should hire workers at the going market rate. If they can’t afford that, then that’s capitalism at work: businesses continue to run only if they take in enough money to cover costs. It is lazy and it encourages laziness to give them a break on that.

We are not entitled to make money. That is something we earn by providing goods and services for others, and by following the law. A great deal of the money given to illegal immigrants goes home. If we paid locals for the same work, it would stay here, and reinforce local employment.

The trade in illegal immigration causes another problem: the lack of assimilation. Bush’s guest worker program would only legalize and systematize that. Then we would have France and Germany’s problem: The insistence on nationalism, and of total assimilation in society only leads to enclaves of the unassimilated.

For the sake of security, economic and otherwise, it only makes sense to enforce economic and immigration law here, and for business to act within the legal market for labor, rather than outside of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #130348
d.a.n wrote: Nothing wrong with immigration, if it is legal and not excessive.
Ron Brown wrote: Absolutely, Limited immigration can help a country by bringing new ideas and fresh blood with it. If it weren’t for immigration I would have never met my wife. She came over here from Australia when she was 12. Prettiest immigrant I’ve ever seen.

Yes, I think a lot of people confuse those that simply want secure borders with xenophobes. There’s nothing wrong with legal immigration, but illegal immigration is very harmful, and anyone who believes otherwise needs to read this, and consider what their opinion will be when they or theirs becomes a victim.

Some people think illegal aliens do no harm, but that’s only if one ignores the burdening of our educations systems, healthcare systems, law enforcement systems, insurance systems, driving about without automobile insurance or drivers’ licenses, and bringing disease, crime, and death with them.

This country has 20 to 30 million illegal aliens, and the federal government sanctions it, by doing little to nothing to stop it.

Maybe they will feel differently, when they or one of theirs is killed like Min Soon Chang (an 18-year-old college freshman), killed by Jorge Hernandez, a.k.a. Jorge Soto, in a terrible head-on wreck while Hernandez was driving drunk. Jorge had already been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported to Mexico 17 times!

The federal government doesn’t want to do anything about it, and also does not want states (or the Minute Men) to do anything either. New Mexico and Arizona have declared a state of emergency, but the federal government, responsible for national security, is failing at their most primary purpose.

Maybe the federal government does not see the harm? After all, they are not very good at connecting dots.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 28, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #130352
Mike Tate wrote: Now our appetite appears to be satisfied via immediate gratification selected from our vast leisure and entertainment industry.

That appears to be true.
It seems to be part of a cycle?

We appear to be in (4) and (5) now, and possibly starting (1). Or, perhaps there’s a way to skip (1) and (2), and return directly to (3) ?

Americans have grown too dependent on government.
Social Security and Medicare will require reforms whether people like it or not.

Government is woefully incompetent, which is why we shouldn’t rely on it for too much, ever. The problem is, government takes much too, in the way of taxes. 15.3% for Social Security and Medicare. Upto 35% for income tax. Now, politicians simply bribe voters with their own money.

With all of the tens of thousands of cases of eminent domain abuse (legal plunder) in the last few years, abused tax system, falling median wages and growing gap between the top 1% and the remaining 99%, abuses of the presidential pardons, and spying without warrants, secret prisons, torture policies, etc., it appears we are just beginning (1). If not we’re stuck in (4) and (5).

The root problem and solution are not difficult to understand, but the much needed reforms will unlikely occur sooner than later. Unfortunately, we will probably all have to learn the hard way again.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 28, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #130383

Biggest bunch of mental masturbation. Why don’t YOU do something about the stopping the spiraling disarray instead of trying to impress yourselves with your pedantical blathering. Get off you rubicund butts and start making calls, emails…Only thing more heinous than this present administration is your blatant indolence!

Posted by: S. Hawking at February 28, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #130492

What Americans’ can’t understand is how a Congressman or Senator can sleep at night, knowing they’re selling out Americans for their own personal gain. I’m seriously surprised these folks haven’t at least been shot at for betraying the American People.

Also, how do we accept a President who calls those protecting our porous southern border, “vigilantes”? That’s an absolute outrage. And what about him giving away a billion of our tax dollars to pay for anchor babies in bordering states, while millions of Americans have no medical insurance at all? And also, Bush wants to rebuild Iraq, yet our own people are suffering STILL from Katrina. Homeless and broke…in the the richest country in the world. I’m just waiting for a desperate Katrina victim who lost everything, to go out and take matters into his own hands. So far, it seems it just might be the only language our government understands.

Posted by: Silent Majority at March 1, 2006 10:03 AM
Post a comment