IMMIGRANT

Posted by Herb7734 10 months, 2 weeks ago to History
300 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

By now, we are all familiar with the problems faced by America relative to illegal immigration. But, there was a time, early in the 20th century,
when immigration was welcome and sought after, with many square miles to fill. Just about all you needed to do in order to be an immigrant was was to be healthy enough to remain vertical. If you saw the beginning of "The Godfather Part 2" you got a pretty clear picture of Ellis Island. In Poland and Russia Jews were were confined to "shtetles" ( Little States) within or nearby a city. Unless they were either professional men, land owners,or shopkeepers who dealt in necessities (butchers, bakers, food suppliers , etc.) they were so poor that many of them literally starved to death.This is about my Grandfather on my mother's side.

My Grandpa, Manus (Mike) Sherman, his wife and daughter live just outside of Lublin the 4th largest city in Poland in what we call today the Ukraine. He was a non commissioned officer in the Polish army., from which he defected at the outset of World War 1.He changed his name in order to keep from getting caught.and his passport wouldn't sound any alarms because he stole the I.D. off of a dead soldier. It's about this part where I tell you a couple apochryphal stories that circulated among immigrants.There were dozens of themand here are just two: Jews hated the army. In those days, they had good reason to. They had no loyalty to the repressive country in which they lived and they were treated even worse in the army than they were as civilians.

At Ellis Island many of the men, especially those from Germanywho were fleeing the Kaiser's conscription were loathe to give their real names, and on one day they decided to all say "Ich fergessen" (I forgot.) The closest to that in the ears of a minimally educated official, was "Ed Ferguson." That day a hundred or so Ed Fergusons passed through Ell Island. Here's another one:: Before going on permanent AWOL many would steal the wallets of the dead soldiers, not for the money, but for the I.D.Hence our new family name on my mother's side became Shermann, the second n getting dropped when Grandpa got ajob.Another great incentive was that Ford was paying $5 a dayand once the rumor was confirmedyou couldn't hold back half of Europe from immigration. $5 was a month's income in Poland.

"Mike" had a few bucks saved up from many years of manual labor so he traveled to Detroit, where he got a job in construction, building the Rackham Memorial Building, a Marble palace in the cultural center which also contained the Institute of Arts and the Main Library, also marble clad masterpieces.During this time my mother developed rickets from malnutrition so, her mom sent her to live with her parents who owned a small farm. For the first time in her young life, she was able to eat decent food and lots of fresh vegetables and eventually she grew strong but never achieved what should have been her full height.Grandpa told me that he couldn't believe his good fortune. To be able to live a life that Americans took for granted. He got hired at Ford making more money than he ever imagined.Enough to pay rent, clothes, food, and even some to save.He loved Amerca and learned English as quickly as he could so he could become a citizen. By his accent some would call him Russian(same as A.R.'s). "I can tell by your accent tht you are Russian." His back would stiffen up and he'd look the person in the eye and say, "Not Russian, American!" While he was proud to be an American , he still retained some old country habits. He drank only Corby's whiskey when indulging because it was the cheapest rotgut. He also like Slivovitz, a very potent plum brandy. It was said that after uncorking the bottle, the fumes alone would make you drunk. He loved caviar. Not that expensive blsck stuff that you daintilly put on crackers, but the orange fish eggs that you could smell 2 blocks awa when he opened the jar.And that's the difference between 1920 and 2018. Every family had its own stories of coming to America. I have just skimmed the surface. I have had the good fortune of being 1st or 2nd generation depending on which side you look at. As I was growing up, I heard various aunts uncles and, of course, parentstell me how lucky I was to be born in America.They were right.
+.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    "He loved America" "He was proud to be American" that is what is lacking in many of today's Muslim immigrants. Thanks for the tale.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      Not just Muslim immigrants. They come here for the money, and want to change our culture, rather than become a part of it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        Who are "they"? Some muslims do not come to change the culture. Many others don't either, but seek to maintain multiculturalist balkanization.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          Peacefully this is fine, but with the full meaning of your balkanization term, I view the intent as a subset of “change the culture”.

          We have a farm in town trying to get approval for Halal (sp?) slaughtering. I’m inclined to support it, as it is similar to kosher butchering, and we have a very old private slaughterhouse in town already, which I love. Seems like everyone but the neighbors is ok with it, but it will fail. Not sure if I should view this as intrusion into their private farm, or a ridiculous religious nonsense to go the way of the dodo.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            Let's say that there is a non-poisonous species of rattlesnake, identical in appearance to the poisonous kind. Could you be held as a bigot of rattlers if you prefer to have them taken away because they made you uncomfortable? When a large part of any group of humans proves to be a problem, so are all the rest of that group tainted by the activities of the evil sect.Should you be responsible. for not wanting the trouble free version as a neighbor? Why take a chance. If they lived next door., wouldn't You want them gone? Think what you'd feel if, say there were a couple of bearded young men from Yemen in the family. Sometimes bigotry is irrational -- sometimes not.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Pretty much, but the classes of snakes hiding physically identical poisonous subspecies are legion. Islam is just the most venomous at the moment.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                It is the only religion/political organization that espouses murder and mayhem as part of its strategy.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  They all have had their violent moments, and all leverage ignorance and fear for power.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                    Islam is the only large religion (The very largest) that espouses coercion, at present.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 1 week ago
                      Catholicism supports force against women, preying on ignorance and social inertia. They will all do what they think they can get away with. Islam just preys on less inhibited more desparate people.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                        So...you are comparing Catholicism to Islam You certainly have a point. I guess we tolerate Catholocism more because it's more western and therefore more understandable to us. The question is which is more barbaric? To Americans it's Islam, hands down. In my area most catholics are either Irish or Italian, two ethnic types I seem to like better than Middle Easterners whom I got along with fine when I lived adjacent to their neighborhoods.Hmmm. I think I may be a bigot.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 1 week ago
                          I agree with almost everything you say, but look at history and intentions.
                          We can all sit more easily at dinner with most Catholics, but I wager the positions reversed if sitting with a modern Muslim in Dubai vs a catholic during the inquisition.
                          Details change, based on circumstance, but the basics are the basics.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                        I do get your point, however, that leaders of the Catholic church, over the years, have supported some hideous actions - burning at the stake, ripping arms and legs off on a rack, etc.
                        That is different from what the religion espouses in its teachings.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 1 week ago
                          I have Muslim friends that say precisely the same thing. One has provided me a list of passages from the Quran demonstrating the “New Testament” version of the most often quoted “Leviticus” statements.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                          What the Church supports is its teachings. It isn't just the sordid history like burning at the stake. The Church established and fought to maintain the ban on contraception until it was overturned by the Supreme Court, and still promotes preventing abortion.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                            That's ok. A religious belief is not dependent upon on any secular court for support or approval.
                            Those who are Catholic are free to live by their beliefs and not have abortions. They just can't prevent others from getting one.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                              Preventing others, by force, from getting one is exactly what they want.

                              For themselves only, it would be "ok" only politically, in the sense that they have a political right to not do it, but it is not "ok" in any other way. Accepting a duty to deny one's own happiness and accepting dogma in place of reason are not "ok"; they are self destructive.

                              No belief is "dependent upon on any secular court for support or approval"; everything you believe to be true is a personal decision. Only your own mind can choose whether or not accept or reject a personal belief. But a religious belief is based on faith, whether or not following authoritarian dictates of duty; and faith versus "dependent upon on any secular court for support or approval" is a false alternative: it leaves out reason. That is not "ok".
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                                I don't like abortion. but, I don't believe in laws that punish for doing it. A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with it or to it.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  What is not to like about it? This is not a matter of a right to do something wrong, to be frowned on but not punished. The choice is not subjective opinion in deciding what to do with one's own body. The decision is to be rationally made on the basis of whether or not she wants to bear a child and be responsible for it in comparison with else she is doing with her life. That is not a right to do something that is wrong or somehow unseemly. The only thing "not to like" about it is the necessity of a distracting, time consuming medical procedure, necessary under the circumstances but otherwise preferred to not be required.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Herb7734 replied 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  • Herb7734 replied 10 months, 1 week ago
                              • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                                Your first statement has a lot of truth to it.
                                I was glad when the US Supreme Court struck down a lot of the draconian restrictions in Texas that were, as you describe, meant to stop by force people from getting an abortion.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  Support and imposition of such laws has been the history of the Catholic Church. The recent law in Texas is not an aberration from the underlying theme (and did not come entirely from Catholics). Up until the 1970s they were banning contraception as well as abortion. In assessing the Catholic position it is not enough to say "they have a right to it themselves" because inherent in their position is universal duty imposed on all of us from a "higher authority". With such a fundamental duty mentality they are not about to adopt a "libertarian" position; they take their mysticism and belief in duties seriously.

                                  The second statement you did not comment on is more fundamental than the politics: It is not "ok" to adopt self-destructive beliefs even with a political right to do so. Not only is it self-destructive, it has consequences for all social interactions including politics.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                        Say what?
                        That particular people calling themselves Catholic Christians have done something morally reprehensible doesn't mean they all are nor that the religion itself is.
                        The faith itself is based on Christ's teachings and there is nothing about "force against women, preying on ignorance and social inertia".

                        Whether anyone believes in or follows the teachings of Christ is a different matter. You make a statement about what Catholicism is, as a religion. That is a false statement.
                        You might as well state that Objectivists are Thieves! Why? Because once upon a time you knew of one that was.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                          Church dogma is not an aberrant thief; it is the Church's position. The world is full of competing and contradictory faiths all claiming to be "Christ's teachings", which are at their root mystical injunctions to live for a supernatural world. All of it preys on ignorance and leaves nothing but force in place of reason.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                            Love your neighbor as you love yourself sounds pretty reasonable to me. Sound advice whether there is any mystical supernatural paradise at the end of the rainbow or not.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by Lucky 10 months, 1 week ago
                              As instruction or recommendation this statement has no value.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                                It is not my instruction or recommendation.

                                It is given as an example of an emphasis on the individual - "love yourself" and then from that starting point "love your neighbor as you love yourself". Not that you must love your neighbor no matter what, but rather, make up your own mind based on your individual viewpoint. Sounds pretty damn close to Value for Value.

                                This in response to a number of comments pontifically stating that Christianity has nothing to do with respect for the individual. All or nothing statements rarely are wise.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  Religious injunctions are duties to be obeyed, not a starting point of your own value to yourself. They allow no "make up your own mind" -- from either a subjective "viewpoint" or an objective ethics based on one's own happiness as the goal and the nature of human rationality as the standard. Demanding to love everyone as yourself negates the possibility of value; it is not 'value for value'.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                Not only is it not a principle for what to do, it destructively divorces value from goals, which is its purpose. In particular it debases the concept of "love" by making no distinction between that which is worthy of it and anything at large called a "neighbor", while it saps your life of effort misdirected away from your own values, which is also its purpose.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  It really is strange when you think about it. An individual has no value, but his neighbor does. And his value is dependent on his neighbor. In other words, everyone has a value except to themselves. A formula for submissive slaughter if ever there was one.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • ewv replied 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  • DeangalvinFL replied 10 months, 1 week ago
                        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 1 week ago
                          I stand by the statement. Catholisism has institutionalized murder, lies and oppression for an age, all for power.
                          Today it still institutionalizes forcing women into slavery against their will in child birth, based on dogma, not science.
                          Most recently, the Vatican has endorsed socialism and essentially communism, supporting fiscal slavery for all, in a pathetic, last gasp to maintain its numbers among the poor in South America. The hypocrisy of the Vatican calling out corporations as evil for seeking money is a bitter comedy.

                          Little could be more orthogonal to Objectivism.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                            In ancient times, mankind needed a set of rules in order to survive. Otherwise rape, pillage, murder would be as commonplace as trips to the loo. You couldn't convince primitives without adding consequences to the morality. If you sin (or commit a crime) you'l be punished and if we don't getcha when you're alive, God will getcha when you die and that's for eternity. All the rest is window dresseing which shores up the validity of the punishment. The fact that after thousands of years the majority still go by the religious rules shows that while we are progressiing scientifically, socially and morally, we are still primitives.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                            True. That is why I am not a practicing Catholic. However, that is not the teachings of Christ, which are individualistic.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                              The ancient mystery religions were just as "orthogonal" to Objectivism as the later dogmas. Christianity was individualist only in that it focused on saving one's own soul, though in a supernatural world. A life of sacrifice to others, mysticism, and obedience to authoritarian dogma during actual life was dictated as the means.

                              Such primitive otherworldly, anti-reason, anti-pursuit of happiness in life is the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy and the opposite of the heroic characters in Atlas Shrugged. It was the basis of the entire later elaboration of Church dogma when the original primitive mysticism was formulated by Augustine as a philosophy that entrenched the misery of the Dark Ages for over a thousand years.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                                I love the weird and mysterious,I find a good magician to be enthralling. But I'll continue to remember that it is illusion.There's plenty legitimate mysteries out there, but we know that eventually they will be understood and mysteries no longer.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  Whether or not mankind ever answers any particular outstanding question, there is an enormous difference in psychology between someone who finds in curiosity a mystery to be fascinating and to be understood versus the mentality that wallows in and relishes the "mysterious" as beyond human comprehension on principle and likes the feeling of that mental state.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Herb7734 replied 10 months, 1 week ago
                            • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                              The teachings of Christ are basically the adoration of a symbol (man as God) and the unworthyness of the individual who in every case is illustrated to be sacrificed to the "needs" of others.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                All there is is the symbol, but the intended meaning of the "teachings" is much more than adoring a symbol: they are grasping for the impossibility of talking about a contradictory, subjective supernatural as if it exists, falling prostrate in self-effacing adoration of the fantasy. The irrationalism doesn't only adore a symbol, they mean it, however incoherently. What is left when it is examined objectively is the prostrate self-effacement and the symbol. One result here on earth is the rationalization of what you site as the "adoration of the unworthiness of the individual who in every case is illustrated to be sacrificed to the 'needs' of others".
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                              I keep hearing that. Example, please.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                                When Christ was on the cross, two criminals were being crucified with him. I paraphrase:

                                One says, Yo Christ dude, you're powerful, get us out of here.
                                The other says to the first, Shut up, Christ has done nothing to be crucified for; and says the two criminals deserve to be up there because of their personal deeds. He then asks Christ to remember him; then Christ states that he will be in Heaven with him in a few minutes.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                          My main objection to Christianity is that it is a lie from start to finish. As long as you accept that all the morality, rules, and laws may actually be valid, they are based only on an attempt to keep its followers in line.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                            The worst part is that they believe "lie" themselves and the destructive nature of what it is. The process of lying is wrong in principle; when an insidious lie is elevated to a world philosophy it is much more destructive.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                        Catholicism probably went too far even for those days, leading to the reformation. Maybe the same might become true with Islam.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Lucky 10 months, 1 week ago
                          *Catholicism probably went too far * . .
                          It would be more correct to say that nothing it propounds is true or worthwhile. That it exists at all is an affront to human rights and reason.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                            Invented at a time when it is easier to inculcate faith than reason. What's the best way to kill a rebellion? By convincing that it is an affront to a super being but one that not only created mankind, but who was mankind ad as well..Constantine with a little help from his wife invented Christianity by formalizing it.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 1 week ago
                          Islam needs just that, and it has to come from the top of the religion, with the aggression being ostracized by the majority within. Until then, the aggression is a cancer among willing hosts.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                          Only "probably"? The irrational theocracy did not lead to a reformation, people's choices for something better led to the Enlightenment after many centuries of struggle. Being against one form of theocratic rule was not enough. We don't need Islam to show how destructive it is. We know what is right. Those who still don't will not learn it from Islam's antics.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                            https://www.centerforindividualism.or...
                            Voices of reason did have a lot to do with the reformation period. Take a look at the link for one particular reference.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                              The Reformation had nothing to do with "voices of reason". It was emphatically the opposite. Luther was an explicit irrationalist who extolled faith and despair of life on earth. Luther:

                              "Whoever wants to be a christian must tear the eyes out of his reason."

                              “We are not masters of our actions; from the beginning to the end, we are slaves.”

                              “Free will after the fall is nothing but a word.”

                              “Man must completely despair of himself in order to become fit to obtain the grace of Christ."

                              “By nature, all of us are liars born of original sin in blindness.”

                              “Cursed and condemned is every kind of life lived and sought for selfish profit and good. Cursed are all works not done in love, but they are done in love when they are directed wholeheartedly not toward selfish pleasure, profit, honor and welfare, but toward the profit, honor and welfare of others.”

                              “Fear and trust God. God has commanded that you should honor the government. Even if you despise the government for other reasons, you dare not do so any longer because of the word of God.”

                              Revolting in a power struggle against the rituals and corruption of the papacy in favor of self-despair, self-denunciation, anti-reason, and direct mystic communing with the supernatural is not the voice of reason.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                                Someone's a Luther expert. To me, he was as much of a mystery as self-flagellation is.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  It's not expertise, just basic knowledge of Martin Luther and the Reformation. He wasn't alone in the self-flagellation by his intellect and its consequences. Yet he is typically overrated in the name of a supposed moral idealism and champion of modern human rights. He wasn't. He represents the internal collapse and disintegration of the corrupt religious dominance of the time. At least for that we can be grateful.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Herb7734 replied 10 months, 1 week ago
                              • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
                                You make your case well.
                                Martin Luther was a totalitarian jackass like any other.
                                That he argued for his Individual Right to interpret things when wanting to separate from the Pope's authority and then turns around and tells his minions that they have no Individual Right is pure hypocrisy.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  Luther had no concept of the rights of the individual so it's difficult to accuse him of hypocrisy. He is known for his determinism denying free will, the individual's right to interpret the Bible and commune directly with God, and rejection of reason in favor of faith -- with faith alone, without regard to behavior ("works"), the way to salvation in the supernatural world.

                                  None of that supports the right of the individual to use his rational mind in guiding choices and actions here on earth, which is reflected in his statist politics of German nationalism and Protestant persecution of dissenters as bad as or worse than the Catholics.

                                  The positive outcome of his 'freedom of conscience' was an unintended consequence. His own draconian Protestant theology worse than Augustine was impossible to live by, nor did you have to because all that mattered was faith. It was so contradictory and unsystematic that there was no dogma to adhere to. Multiple sects developed with no standard to choose one over another. It all made a Catholic-like monopoly impossible. This nihilism, despite the statism, ultimately left an intellectual vacuum, leaving room for a philosophy of reason and real individualism in the Enlightenment.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            Replacing American individualism with balkanization as such is changing the culture, regardless of the specific ethnic sects. Many immigrants simply staying among themselves do not intend that and can't be said to "come here to change the culture". Others, along with many domestic "liberals" who still out number them, do.

            Whether or not the preventing a farm from seeking its slaughtering operation is intrusion into a private farm depends on the physical affects, including odor. If it would physical harm the neighbors they have every right to oppose it. The ridiculous religious nonsense motivating it is irrelevant and not grounds to interfere.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Maritimus 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Hello, ewv,
              It seems to me that a root of these problems is not evaluating people as individual human beings as such. Trying to evaluate their character, their intelligence, skills and productivity, rather then guessing their ethnicity, or disparaging their accent in English, color of the skin etc.
              I am continuously surprised how frequently people blame, for somebody's lack of success, all sorts of irrelevant things rather than the lack of knowledge and of the ability to understand.
              Best regards.
              Maritimus
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                One does not need to step into a pile of poop in order to identify what it is, and avoiding it. As I have pointed out, one can be legitimately suspicious of the obvious, thus causing preceding with caution. If a swarthy, bearded man, wearing Middle Eastern clothes carrying a brief case walks into the doctor's waiting room, you might want to take steps for your safety and the safety of those around you. In situations like that it doesn't pay to be too late. Of course, it is possible that the odds are the man is perfectly innocent, but if so, he is paying the price that others of his general persuasion have set.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              I think we agree wholeheartedly. Not sure there is a real physical issue outside the farm, just a bunch of meddling tree huggers, which are legion here.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                If a swarthy, bearded man wearing a hajeeb walks into your Pullman section on a train you might be justified feeling a bit warily uncomfortable. You just might feel a bit more secure if you embrace your Taurus 357 magnum revolver tucked away in your waistband under your untucked shirt.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                As to kosher butchering, it is an integral part of the religion and believed to have kept the Jews united over the centuries.Same with halal. The problem is all the other crap associated with Islam that is not part of the Jewish identity. Taken on its own there's no harm in it, other than the negative perception of anything associated with Islam.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        The weird thing is that they come here in order to escape the culture where they are, but want to change back to it once they get here. Only at Muslim rallies do I see "Down with freedom" signs. Is that insanity - or what?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    Very charming story.
    Completely irrelevant to a Mexican claiming asylum from an "oppressive" Mexican government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      Almost nobody I know is anti-immigrant. Rather, they are anti illegal immigrants or fraudulent asylum seekers.
      The USA accepts in the most legal immigrants of any country on earth. We are an immigrant welcoming country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        Anti-immigrant doesn't necessarily mean against all immigration. A lot of conservatives are hostile to immigrants, legal or not, and advocate limits and quotas for protectionism under "legal immigration".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          Perhaps.
          But the current issue is dominated by illegal immigrants Knowingly coming in.
          If that could be stopped then the issues of legal immigration could be addressed logically.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            Conservative protectionism in trashing immigration is rampant. It is quite hostile towards immigrants. They openly insist on protectionist limits.

            The hopeless bureaucracy obstructing immigration through expensive legal fees, arbitrary race-based quotas (now against Europeans), and long artificial delays create an incentive for illegal immigration. Almost no one is talking about that. Most of what we hear is the false alternative of 'open borders' versus protectionism.

            Immigration should be addressed logically now through ending both current artificial obstructions against normal people and the open border anarchy allowing all kinds of criminals, gangs and welfare seekers. That would end a lot of the sympathy towards illegals -- except for those who want illegal immigration to provide entitlements to third worlders at our expense.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              I respectfully disagree with you that "trashing immigration is rampant". Trump himself is married to an immigrant.

              And current "protectionist limits", as you describe them, are the most generous in the entire world. More legal immigrants are welcomed into the USA than any other country on earth.

              The problematic issue is differentiating between legal immigration and non-legal entry/residency.

              Please see: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                Not violating the rights of individuals is not a matter of generosity and Trump's wife has nothing to do with it. The problem begins with what is legal and what is prohibited and obstructed. Immigration laws are a nightmare of bureaucracy, prohibitions and unnecessary expense coupled with irrational exemptions and non-enforcement. Conservatives do in fact trash immigrants and demand protectionist restrictions. Mark Levin does that constantly.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  I do think Trump's wife is a relevant fact.
                  Many people criticize him for being against "immigration". That is untrue. He doesn't make himself clear quite often but he is against illegal immigration and for immigration.
                  If he truly hated immigrants, then he never would have married one. Definitely relevant, in my opinion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    "Anti-immigrant" does not always mean "no immigration". Trump has no concept of individual rights which is part of why he is often so muddled and contradictory. Part of his opposition is to terrorists and criminals but he often makes no distinction.

                    His wife didn't marry him "by right", but he doesn't even think in terms of rights. It is easy for him to bounce around claiming he isn't opposed to immigration while showing his general hostility and statist protectionism. The repeated claims that he "married an immigrant" is not an answer to criticism of his policies, let alone protectionist conservatives.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      "The repeated claims that he "married an immigrant" is not an answer to criticism of his policies. ".
                      No. It is a response to relentless accusations of Trump being Xenophobe along with every other phobe and ist.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        There was a time in my youth in which I would have married a beautiful whore in preference to anyone else. Marrying is one of the most mysterious and complicated acts mankind does.But Rand nailed it. A person who considers herself a hero looks for a hero to love. Closest I ever came to understanding the why of relationships.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        The United States must adopt an immigration system that serves the national interest. To restore the rule of law and secure our border, President Trump is committed to constructing a border wall and ensuring the swift removal of unlawful entrants. To protect American workers, the President supports ending chain migration, eliminating the Visa Lottery, and moving the country to a merit-based entry system. These reforms will advance the safety and prosperity of all Americans while helping new citizens assimilate and flourish. From Whitehouse.gov
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                          That sounds like the usual campaign rhetoric with empty phrases and false premises. "Protecting American workers" from immigrants is the protectionism that Ayn Rand denounced. No one comes here or should come here to "serve the national interest".
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                            The "usual" rhetoric is what addresses the long standing problems.Once again, every problem solved is a bolstering of individuality because it improves employment.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                              "Improving employment" is not individuality. They are different concepts. Someone may benefit from an economic condition not as bad as it was, when that happens for him, but it is not "individuality".
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                                The word employment works like any other general group. It consists of individuals. We are not ants.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  Words don't "work", they designate concepts with meaning. Improving national employment does not mean individualism. They are different concepts. They mean different things. Trump's economic nationalism using government power to interfere in the economy, which sometimes help some while hurting others, has no concern for the rights of individuals any more than FDR.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Herb7734 replied 10 months, 1 week ago
                          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                            It is the immigration system that serves the national interest not the immigrants.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                              "National interest" is a vague, collectivist term that is not a valid criterion: An immigration system to "serve the national interest" is an attempt to force immigrants to "serve the national interest" or else be prohibited in order to "serve the national interest". There are valid specific national interests, such as defense when properly defined; an unqualified generality "national interest" used to control people is not valid. Conservatives doing this as immigration policy typically use it to mean economic protectionism and/or cultural tribalism.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  Dobrien 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                                I suppose their is no national interest as far as you are concerned. How would you describe the immigration policy the US should adhere to.
                                Who would that policy serve if not the nation.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                                  The purpose of laws is to protect the rights of individuals, not a collectivist "serve the nation". Freedom of movement is a fundamental right, not to be limited by collectivism, and not a gift of any government regardless of where one is born. As in any other realm, freedom does not mean anarchy. Prohibiting criminals, terrorists, carriers of infectious disease, welfare seekers, and invaders does not violate their rights. Banning people who compete economically, who don't share conservatives' approved "cultural", i.e., religious and social, beliefs, and who are deemed to not "serve the national interest" does.

                                  I did not say there "is no national interest", but it is not the vague, collectivist catch-all rationalization as commonly used, which you can read a few lines above your supposition to the contrary: "There are valid specific national interests, such as defense when properly defined; an unqualified generality "national interest" used to control people is not valid."

                                  As Ayn Rand put it:

                                  "There is no such thing as “the public interest” except as the sum of the interests of individual men. And the basic, common interest of all men—all rational men—is freedom. Freedom is the first requirement of “the public interest”—not what men do when they are free, but that they are free. All their achievements rest on that foundation—and cannot exist without it.

                                  "The principles of a free, non-coercive social system are the only form of “the public interest.” -- from “The Fascist New Frontier”, Ford Hall Forum 1962, anthologized in The Ayn Rand Column.

                                  and

                                  "A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .

                                  "Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations." -- from “Collectivized ‘Rights’” in The Virtue of Selfishness http://anthemfoundation.org/for-profe...

                                  and on immigration in particular, when Ayn Rand was asked at the Ford Hall Forum in 1973 about the conservative protectionist position on immigration -- “What is your attitude toward immigration? Doesn’t open immigration have a negative effect on a country’s standard of living?” -- she answered:

                                  "You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any 'self-interest' that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?"
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      Trump understands individual rights. His weakness is his "all-in" mentality and goal orientation. Anything obstructing his run to the goal will be cast aside, knocked down or blown up to the extent that he has the wherewithall to do it. And that is what the purists and the Trump haters seize upon. It is his strength and his weakness.Among the libs there is no question of any moral consideration. Good or bad, all that counts for them, is win.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Snezzy 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        Trump uses words in a way that annoy his enemies. What he understands very well is how to manage an organization. Management involves rewarding good deeds and punishing bad ones, and in setting up a system for accomplishing that. One key principle is to reward publicly and to punish privately. He does that in surprising ways, as he did with Kim Jong Un.

                        Purists have a problem with that technique. Some see Trump as lying. Instead, I think he's giving various people what they need to hear. You and I only hear the public version. Kim gets the public adoration he craves. He also gets, secretly, the admonition that we are not blowing his socks off with that "button that works."
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                          One of Trump's strengths is his ability to negotiate without the use of obscure words and phrases. It seems so simple that the opponent is sucked in before he knows what has happened to him. Trump is negotiating with devious persons, but he is more devious than any of them. He is the white knight, but they don't know it because his armor is any color that will help him win.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        Where has Trump ever shown an understanding of the rights of the individual, let alone advocated for them? His repeated goal is deals for the collectivism of the national economy.

                        An "all-in" mentality and goal orientation is not a weakness. The threat is is nationalistic collectivist economics and disregard for the rights of the individual.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                          Every time he wins a negotiation that improves employment and increases sales, he advocates the rights of the individual over the collective. Depending on how his opponent plays, his reaction changes but the underlying response always works the same. The technique has worked over the years for everyone from Sherlock Holmes to Judge Judy.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                            "Negotiating for the economy" is not advocating the rights of the individual either in intention or results. Government policy on the premise that businesses exist to "provide jobs" for the masses is not individualistic. Any fascists or communists might do something to improve their economy in some way in comparison with the disaster it was. That does not make them advocates of the rights of the individual. Only pure primitives and environmentalists are motivated to wreck their own economy. "Changing reactions" to how an "opponent plays" is not a strategy.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  The part about current law is a nightmare of bureaucracy and therefore unjust and unfair, I completely agree with.
                  Mark Levin does not represent all Conservatives. If he rails against legal immigrants then he is a jackass.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Mark Levin does not represent all conservatives, but as a popular conservative intellectual spokesman with followers in the millions he has enormous influence on the conservative movement. We often see his sound-bite positions echoed even on this forum.

                    Levin is an example of a conservative who insists he not anti immigration even with his protectionism and hostility; he wants "legal immigration" to mean government-granted privilege based on a collectivist standard of what is good for the "nation" and "economy". He is an example of why one can't equate "anti-immigrant" with "no immigration".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      He reflects the attitude of Goldwater conservatives He, along with Ben Shapiro and others are very strict in their beliefs and I can see their attitudes. I am more willing to be corrected and to see another point of view, which in some cases gets me condemned as heretical.But if after I have studied a subject and come to a conclusion about it and even though I might be comfortable with it, i'm willing to be corrected. However, the correction better be good or fuggedaboudit.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                There are, however, immigration limits in certain catagories.. Asians are more strictly limited than Italians etc. All based upon actuarial tables based on population.It is strictly bean counter methodology.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  The current immigration laws include discrimination against Europeans to favor 'Latinos'. That is in addition to the random 'lottery' and 'anchor-baby-bring-the-whole-family-no-matter-what' irrationalism.

                  Protectionism is already in place with restrictive conditions and quotas on H1B visas, and conservatives are clamoring for more restrictions. That is part of the anti-immigration mentality.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    For over 100 years it was exactly the other way around. We find the flaws in a sort of "can you top this?" marathon. But you'll never become an olympic swimmer until you learn to jump into the deep end of the pool.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      If today's policies and the economic and cultural "merit" protectionism demanded by conservatives had been in place a few generations ago many of the stories you cite would not have been possible. Many of us would not be alive and Ayn Rand would not have survived, let alone allowed to come to this country and produce what she did. Her productive success could not have been predicted, and if it had been she would have certainly been kept out by the establishment.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        Very likely true. Successful Jewish authors, writing in English usually did so in Europe, mostly England and France.Rand would have been a success any time she got a book published. It would have been amusing to hear her speak French with that atrocious Russian accent.I think she would have been a hit in the USA no matter, with her forceful personality and ability to out think her opponent in an argument. Maybe not. People like her are a force of nature and usually get what they want and the very thought of crossing her makes one tremble.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                          The Soviets managed to kill a lot of 'forces of nature' that crossed them. She was concerned that if she hadn't gotten out she would have been murdered. If she had only gotten to France it's not clear that she would have been able to publish. She could have attempted Anthem (published also in Great Britain) and We the Living" based on her ideas and background but would not have had the knowledge to write _The Fountainhead or _Atlas Shrugged*. Whatever she might have done it may not have been in a form to become popular here. Maybe if she had gotten to France or a similar country she could have eventually made it here many decades later. With such delays and obstructions she probably would have accomplished much less both in American philosophical fiction and the non-fiction philosophy. We are fortunate that the anti-immigration forces failed to stop her.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                            That's the same argument as against abortion. If abortion in those days was commonplace, she might never have been born. Or Washington, or Einstein.Or, if the world was illuminated by the aurora what a green world this would be.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                              It has nothing to do with the argument against abortion. It is a fact that when different choices are made there are different outcomes and it matters that people not be controlled to prevent their own rational choices.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                                The subject is different, the argument is the same.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                                  It is not the same argument. Religionists ignore the right of a woman to not bear a child as they promote a mystical soul with a "right" to be born. The right of immigration is the right of any individual to move around on the physical earth in order to live. That we are fortunate that Ayn Rand was able to come here, not just for her own life, but for the benefits to us, is simply a fact. So is how denial of the rights of individuals prevents their productivity in addition to their own right to life. We are talking about real persons, not cells with a potential to perhaps become a person. The principle of acknowledging the rights of the individual has nothing in common with demands for an alleged duty to produce a baby.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Herb7734 replied 10 months, 1 week ago
        • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          I haven't come across that form of prejudice before, but I wouldn't doubt that it may exist.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            Calls for protectionist immigration policy are all over the conservative movement. Every time they moan about "protecting jobs" from being "taken" that is what they are doing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Unionists and Conservatives are not normally lumped together.
              The Unionists calls for "protecting jobs" is faulty Economics and usually refers to tariff policy rather than immigration. I agree "protecting jobs" is counter to any logical Objectivist viewpoint.
              And "all over the conservative movement" is an example of broad generalization statements that I find faulty. They are not all the same, especially about ignorant calls for protecting jobs. For example, Rand Paul is quite different than other "Conservatives".
              I encourage you to watch Dinesh D'Souza's call out of fraudulent people claiming to be the "Right" or "Conservative" when they are anything but:
              https://www.dineshdsouza.com/films/de...
              This clarified a number of things for me. One being that all Conservatives are most certainly not the same. Some, Richard Spencer for example, are Fascist Leftists or wolves in sheep's clothing. But watch the movie and decide for yourself.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                "Conservative", like "liberal" is an imprecise term. Mark Levin is trying to gain acceptance for his own version and is often openly hostile to Rand Paul.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  Precisely.
                  That is one of the primary points that I have been trying to get across. A generalized term shouldn't be used to disparage a large swath of humanity.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    "Conservative" is a broad term, but does have meaning and is definite enough in essentials to know that it is not, and has not been, capable of defending a free society, as illustrated by Ayn Rand's 1960 "Conservatism: An Obituary", anthologized in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      Fair enough. A term precisely clarified in a book can indeed be used for valid discussion and argument.
                      But, is it not true that the Conservative that you mean, and I assume Ayn Rand as well, is not the same as the common broad-based usage of the typical politician or newscaster?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        Ayn Rand was not a conservative at all. Rand Paul is a mixture of conservative and libertarian. Mark Levin is a conservative. So are most of the House "Freedom Caucus" and many other politicians, such as Roy Moore.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Generalizations are too generalized to ever be applied to humanity.That is why one reason totalitarian philosophies never work. It's like trying to live in an igloo in Ohio, eventually summer comes around.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                Based on what seems like hundreds of replies, we have discovered the flaw, and it is noteworthy that it is in the nature of humans or the Krell, or you name even the wisest, most creative people extant, and still, there will be a rotten grape in every bunch.And if left to their own devices, soon all are infected.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      Trying to point out the difference between immigration circa early 20th century versus 21st century. I didn't mention Mexico because it was not relevant back then. The influx from Europe was massive, . So, while I was at it, I thought that some immigration tales might add to the amusement or at the very least allow for a bit of background insight. Immigration tales could easily fill a book.As an example, my mom was around 9 when she was aboard the ship from Bremen to New York. A purser brought hot chocolate on deck. My mother had never tasted chocolate, or anything that sweet. She immediately became addicted and came back again and again and running to the bathroom in between. She called him "Captain" and he was amused and kept indulging her.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    The telling of my Grandfather's and Grandmother's story was never told, so I don't know why they came to America from Sweden in the 1890's but I am sure it wasn't nearly an act of hope and desperation of yours. However, They appreciated America just as much. My Grandfather Carl was a painter in Boston and could pick up any musical instrument and play anything by ear.
    My Grandmother died during the Flue epidemic and My Father and his sisters were separated for a while; my father shipped off to a rich estate and taught landscaping...something he taught me as a kid.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      So.....the purser (captain) asked my mom where she was going and she told him Michigan. In German and Yiddish, a crazy person is a "Mishuga" and a flock of them are "mashuginas" And used as a direct object it's "Mishagoss."W'e're going to Michigan." THe purser making a joke, Michigan? Oh yeah, that's where they put all the mashuginas." She went crying to her mem that they were going to the land of the crazies. It took her a while to dispell her fears, after all, he was the captain.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        It's nice that you got to hear those stories, mine were second hand. My grandparents on my fathers side had passed before I was born. My fathers older sister was my favorite aunt though...she passed in 05 at 95.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    I may be dense, but I'm afraid I don't understand you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
      You said "I don't like abortion". Why? What do you think is wrong with it? Why would the topic of punishment come up at all just because someone doesn't like something as a matter of mere taste? Religionists want to criminalize it, but how is your dislike for it different than theirs'? Are you agreeing with them on something, and if not why say 'me too but'?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
        Because it is killing my potential son or daughter. I'm up for whatever happens, be it physical or mental. What confirmed it for me is the kid We were supposed to abort, turned out to be an outstanding person who died at age 32 and I'll miss him all the rest of my life. But if he had been aborted I would never have gotten to experience him.Make of that what you may. A life is a life no matter how Rand thinks of it. She never wanted to experience motherhood and maybe that shaded her attitude a bit. After all, while she had a mind like a machine, she really wasn't one. She had humor and experienced the same emotions that we do, and when it came to personal relationships she could become pretty irrational.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
          You had many potential sons or daughters. If that were the criterion you would be worried about all of them and done everything you could to have as many children as you could. That you wanted that son in particular, were willing to take the risk, and understandably so miss him now is not a standard for disliking all abortion (or with the Catholic Church condemning contraception). The right of abortion does not mean abort everything. It does not mean that someone who wants a child should abort it or not care. It does not mean you should not have had your son.

          Ayn Rand gave reasons for her principles; they did not come from "shaded attitudes". Your own love for your son is more than "shading" your attitude towards all abortion. A potential life is not a life. "A life is a life no matter how Rand thinks of it" makes no sense: The potential is not the actual. Her personal choice to not become a mother was not the explanation of the moral right not to and was not an irrational personal relationship. One has the right to make many choices of what values to pursue in life. Any choice made is not a denunciation of others' different choices for their own lives. Her choice to not have children says nothing about your choice to have your son and be glad you did, and your choice says nothing about hers or anyone else's not to have children, let alone a moral status of that choice as not liking abortion as such.

          The value of life does not mean we should make as many of them as we can. Ayn Rand emphasized the value of a woman's life to herself. That is the source of the moral right to have an abortion, if necessary, for a woman who does not want to have children or have more children and whose personal values would be destroyed by taking on the unwanted responsibility.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    I thought there was something supposed to be in this topic about trying to get someone pardoned who was unjustly imprisoned. I guess there was a
    glitch in the machine.

    But I do find Herb's story moving. And I am very much troubled by the difficulties of (legitimate) immigrants. Although I gave Trump my vote, it wasn't out of xenophonbia, or a great enthusiasm for his proposed Wall. It was to keep Hilliary Clinton's Socialistic policies from being enacted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      What do you mean by "something supposed to be in this topic about trying to get someone pardoned who was unjustly imprisoned"? The topic here is immigrants.

      Trump did recently grant presidential pardons to two ranchers in the Hammond family who were savagely persecuted and imprisoned through an irrational application of "anti-terrorism" laws under the Obama administration. That is something that Trump did that is very, very good, but almost no one is talking about it and the public has no idea what happened and why.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      You are not alone on that score.But, all things considered, he's done a remarkable job with more positive effects than could be expected in such a short time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        He's also promoted himself with a lot of loose rhetoric that does not reflect actual accomplishment and done damage.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
          Well now, EWV that is one of the most appealing things about him. He talks like Uncle Abe after he had imbibed a few.Even though he's a teetotaler.To most folks it is better than Politicians whose every word is vetted, and is as dry as the sands of the Sahara, or who is so slick at lying that you fail to recognize the lie.Reminds me of "All The King's Men" when a reporter tells the hero, "you don't know how to orate." whereupon he replies, "But I know how to win."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
            Rejecting the establishment intellectuals is appealing. How he does it is not. His erratic, contradictory outbursts are not leading to anything good, and we will pay for it. It is not enough to be just against something; it matters what one is for. Contradictory deals for the sake of deals in his economic nationalism are not reason and individualism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
              You are one prickly individual -- you know that? You remind me of Rush, "Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                Trump idolatry and wishful thinking are not to be taken lightly, and rejecting it does not make one "prickly". No, this is not "fun".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
                  Lighten up. "The world will little note nor long remember" what we inscribe here. PLUS your email proves you to be prickly as a metaphor for contrarian, and of course you're having fun or you wouldn't be posting your posts.I think you just don't recognize what fun is.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
                    The world will take more than a little note of the decline of this country and Donald Trump's part in it as a symptom, not the cause. Taking ideas seriously does not make posting about Trump a barrel of fun.

                    Speculations about personal motivations and "prickly" name-calling are not superior recognition of anything. I don't know what email you are talking about. I did not email you.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PURB 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    "Whoever is fortunate enough to be an American citizen came into the greatest inheritance man has ever enjoyed. He has had the benefit of every heroic and intellectual effort men have made for many thousands of years, realized at last. If Americans should now turn back, submit again to slavery, it would be a betrayal so base the human race might better perish" (Isabel Paterson: The God of the Machine). I have first edition copies, including one inscribed by IP "at the request of Ayn Rand"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      Lady Liberty's torch does not symbolize wealth. Rather, it symbolizes opportunity. A point often missed by immigrants.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 10 months, 1 week ago
        Yeah, I am bothered by some people talking about being "provided with opportunity", etc. If the government does its job, it prevents others from interfer-
        ing with you, and leaves you free to try to succeed, and that is your opportunity.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        Exactly.Freedom, liberty, always boils down to opportunity Many people take the word opportunity to mean free stuff. Far from true. It means the freedom to pursue whatever it is that winds your clock..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    Immigrants who want to join our society, believe in freedom, and have something they bring to the party in terms of willingness to work, skills, etc.- are WELCOME. Freeloaders, card carrying muslims, and people who want to change our country into a replice of their failed countries are NOT WELCOME
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    Herb- I enjoyed your stories. I have heard a different form, now what would be the Yiddish for
    'I do not understand'?
    Very interesting comments from everyone tho' I am flummoxed by down-voting of some comments by ewv.

    Now I m going to piggyback on your thread by giving another story (not personal, from the net)-
    -- --

    1961, London Airport Heathrow

    Two people arrive after a long flight, Man woman, husband wife. No particular education or skills.
    In his pocket the man has a £1 note. They quickly find work in factories and driving buses.
    After a few years, they move to Bristol. They take a small shop in Stapleton Road - a poor and rough area.
    They live in a small two-room flat above the shop.
    The shop sells womens' clothes, the woman is now a seamstress.
    The people who know the man call him Mr Night and Day-
    the shop seldom closes, he never seems to sleep. They work. There are five sons.
    The man tells his boys at the time when there were many big strikes-
    "If they want to earn more, why don't they work harder?".
    Now, one of the sons is a financial adviser. Another is a property tycoon.
    Another, after a commended career in the navy, is Senior Superintendent of a police district.
    The oldest died this year, he was head of a big supermarket chain.

    The second son-
    At school, the careers adviser told him "Stapleton Road kids don't go to University"
    He went to university. Studied economics and politics.
    On graduation, he went for interviews in the City. He said "I could see that my face did not fit".
    He got a job with Chase Manhattan in New York. Did very well.
    Then went to Deutsche Bank when after a few years he became MD of their Singapore office.
    When he left, his salary was about £2.5 million a year.
    Noted by colleagues for brain and energy and being good to work with.
    He left Deutsche Bank, returned to UK, entered politics, elected to Parliament.
    Admires Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand, a staunch supporter of Israel, supports Brexit.
    Describes Momentum, the cult behind Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, as neo-fascist.

    Current job- Home Secretary, responsible for the Home Office - police, security, immigration.
    Birth place – Rochdale.
    Hair color – none, head and face clean shaven.
    Religion- “I do not practice any religion”.
    Appearance - trim.
    Skin color – brown.
    Original nationality and religion of parents - Pakistan, Islam
    Name - Sajid Javid
    -- --
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      A handful of cowardly anti-Ayn Rand conservatives still troll this forum, lashing out by "downvoting" facts and Objectivist principles that clash with conservative dogma. No one should be "flummoxed" that they can't defend their position and their behavior.

      When Ayn Rand was asked at the Ford Hall Forum in 1973 about the conservative protectionist position on immigration -- “What is your attitude toward immigration? Doesn’t open immigration have a negative effect on a country’s standard of living?” -- she answered:

      "You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any 'self-interest' that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?"

      That has been cited on this forum several times. The protectionists reject the rights of the individual as based on the nature of human beings, replacing that with a forced tribalist affinity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        But yet the Gulch had very limited immigration. The mechanism, of course, is the Feudal nature of Midas Mulligan owning the entire valley making it private property.

        Rand was obviously struggling with the problem that no society that allows open immigration can maintain it's philosophical culture. The philosophies that the newcomers bring can overwhelm those of the founders.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          The Valley in Atlas Shrugged had no immigration at all. It was private property by invitation only for a relatively small group. That is not "feudal" and has nothing to do with immigration to a country.

          Ayn Rand was not "obviously struggling" with immigration. She was not "struggling" at all. The response she gave was very clear. It was in response to the conservative position on protection, not invasion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            The feudal aspect is because others were allowed to live there and pay rent to the owner. That's essentially a feudal structure. So, yes it's private property -- a single person owns it.

            And even there she realized it had to be secret, otherwise the surrounding people would decide on what was an "appropriate" tax rate and gather it by force. The fact that such an artificial societal structure was necessary indicates a struggle with the concept -- at least to me.

            The biggest issue I see as I read in Rand's writing is the unwillingness to accept the reality of force. It can be morally wrong for the majority to decide to take your stuff, but if there are enough of them, they can do it. They may develop some philosophical basis to justify it in their own minds but in the end it's because they have to force to make it happen.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              For years the Swiss were considered impregnable because of their mountainous terrain. Today, that is questionable, but the Gulch would require some sort of invulnerability which is why I propose an island.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Feudalism does not mean private ownership. A landlord is not a "feudalist". Feudalism is a system for governing a nation in which private ownership is prohibited. The private Valley was not "essentially a feudalist structure". Everyone was there by choice and by invitation. They traded with each other and owned what they produced. There were no serfs.

              The purpose of the Valley for the plot in Atlas Shrugged was to illustrate how rational people interact with each other unencumbered by statism and altruism, not to describe or promote a utopian society, let alone feudalism. Ayn Rand did not struggle with that concept and she had no "unwillingness to accept the reality of force."

              The political consequences of the use of force by those who rejected reason are vividly described in the novel and elsewhere in her writing. It is why she advocated over and over the necessity of a philosophical revolution of reason and individualism to reverse the decline of this country into statism. It is a principle that a-philosophical libertarians and conservatives still do not grasp.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                If you consider it as a model of a society, then it is feudal. If you consider it as Midas Mulligan inviting a bunch of people over to his house for an extended stay, then sure. But it remains his house. They never can achieve ownership of a portion of it. One that happened, they would become a state -- at least as long as they mutually maintained the rules of secrecy.

                While I agree with the problems of the use of force, the reality is that it exists as a means of human interaction. You can promote a philosophy that rejects the initiation of force, but someone who does not accept your philosophy can do so.

                Any state built upon a common philosophy is vulnerable to the dilution of that philosophy via unlimited immigration of people who do not share it. And once they become the majority they will decide that it's time for a new deal.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  The Valley in Atlas Shrugged was neither someone visiting someone else's home nor "feudalist", and has nothing to do with immigration.

                  The biggest problem today leading to further statism is the philosophy held by the country's own citizens.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Since Galt was able to personally select the residents of the Gulch, his task was easier. And there lies the flaw. There are no guarantees as to the depth of understanding and devotion to freedom and rationality. That may even be true of Galt himself..
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  Problem: How can one detect a nefarious person who is intelligent and resourceful? Very difficult, possibly impossible.There are no tests on earth that can prove one way or another as to the rationality and lack of greed of a human being in his relationships to other humans. Perfection is unavailable. Only one can get as close to it as possible.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  "If you consider it as a model of a society, then it is feudal."
                  Thank you for this interesting discussion. I wanted to interject that I did not read the Gulch or anything else in AS as a model of a society. It was all unhealthy things that come from collectivism. I see the Gulch as a fascinating idea. I think about it when looking down from planes flying over mountainous regions. But I do not think it was a model for society.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    It was not intended to be a model for society. It consisted of carefully selected individuals.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      Good way of putting it. But such a Utopia can't help but seem like a model for society. In any case, it looks as if every Eden has its serpent.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LibertyBelle 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        Only the virtuous, hardworking people were supposed to be accepted into Galt's valley in Atlas
                        Shrugged
                        . But if you create a new nation whose laws have a similar justice, you cannot guarantee the moral choices that will be made by the people who will be born there afterward.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                          The Valley was even more selective than "virtuous hardworking people". Eddy Willers and many others were not invited. There were many in the "outside world" who realized enough to have their own informal "strike" or otherwise revolt, but it took much more in understanding to be be trusted in the Valley. The kind of people selected and the setting described were a carefully created abstraction in the plot to show how the best individuals can interact. There was nothing about it describing a "model" for an entire society, let alone the bizarre claim that it was a feudalist utopia, a call to bring down America with a strike, anarchy or any other such aberration.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        It was intended as a model for human interaction but not as a model for a whole "society". That takes a system of rights implemented by limited government workable for many kinds of people -- though with a dominant culture of reason and individualism for which government structure alone is not a substitute.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Nor was it. It is the illustration of a possibility. There are dozens of variations on the theme. Rand showed "the path less traveled" and a glimpse of possibilities unavailable in today's society.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          It is the same reason that Objectivism will never be the foundation of the laws of the land.The The reliance upon the "heart" rather than the brain is so ingrained going back to ancient fairy tales and a foundation stone of every religion that rationality takes a back seat.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            That is not a reason for Ayn Rand's ideas not to prevail. Christian dominance was overthrown by the Enlightenment, but it took many centuries.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Well....
              Maybe I'm not looking far enough into the future. It is comforting to believe that rationality will eventually prevail.But, at present, I have difficulty seeing it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                It may not prevail, it depends on what people choose in coming generations. But they can choose better if provided with better ideas rather than starting over from the Dark Ages.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        Thanks for the comment, I could say a lot but time-discipline (laziness) limits to-
        there should be no question that a nation can and should control its borders, does not Rand say something on those lines? It is not just standard-of-living self-interest, it is survival.

        Apart from that, if there are rules, people should be judged on character and results. This is what the story of Sajid Javid shows. The UK would have lost a truly outstanding immigrant if it had followed the usual stereotypes.

        Flummoxed= mystified. Those posts could maybe be disagreed with but were sensible and argued from an Objectivist position. I suppose that some here use downvotes to mean- do not like it, don't like your face, whereas a downvote should follow a deliberate mis-statement, something evil, or really bad spelling.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          Ayn Rand's comments on immigration pertained to normal migration against conservative economic forced protectionism. In that response she was not addressing self defense against invasion, which elsewhere discussed in the context of war. A "country" without borders has nothing defined to defend.

          As for normal immigration, the story of Sajid Javid shows an exceptional case. One doesn't have to be exceptional to have rights, and exceptional people can't be predicted in advance.

          The conservative trolls shouldn't mystify you; it has no logic but they're emotionally lashing out with no distinction made between "evil" and "me don't like".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            I'm not sure what straw man these "conservative trolls" represent. I can only speak for myself. Either you have no borders and anyone can come or you have a rational system of immigration that you actually follow.

            I don't think that we can practically say "y'all come", but it's a debatable position. I think our current system of it being very hard to immigrate here legally, but if you break the law you will probably get away with it is an unhealthy policy that builds an underclass and excludes people with skills that would cause them to rise "above the radar".

            As all industrialized societies are experiencing population decline, nations will compete for immigrants. I think they are neither "evil" and have no "dislike" for them. I just think we should not have a system to get bus-boys and farm workers that excludes software engineers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Conservative trolls emotionally lashing out by 'downvoting' what they don't like with no discussion are not a strawman.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                Common practice of all, no matter what part of the left/right line you belong to. If you are on the left of the line, libs could down vote you, on the right conservatives can. It means big pile of one person's opinion.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Population decline can be a good thing. Less traffic congestion, more jobs at higher pay for workers, more interest in remote control wars.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                I agree, but rapid demographic shifts are very disruptive. Singapore is currently running about 1.0 births per woman (.83 CIA, 1.2 World Bank). Since slightly over 2 is considered replacement that cuts the population by half each generation.

                Of course that's not the whole population, that's just the population of that generation which has to support the aging larger group.

                There are lots of nations with very low rates. The U..S. is at 1.8 which is decreasing but our population is being stabilized by immigration. Eventually the nations with birth rates over 2 will drop as well.

                The world's population will peak at about 2050 with an estimated 10 billion (I think more like 9.5) and then begin to decline. Eventually we'll have to do something about it but not for a long time.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  We move through time much faster than most other species. A long tome to us is very short to dinosaurs. We've been here for a couple thousand years but Dino was here for two million.Our birthrates are slow, however, mostly individuals in a 9 month gestation. A very contrary race.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        Legal immigration is part of the Capitalist blueprint.
        It promotes competition.Competition is good and as the old saying goes, "the cream always rises to the top." We all know that all immigration is not good. There's lots of trash seeking to come in, and an orderly, well vetted system put in place is certainly needed, but killed by libs and Trump is right, we need fewer libs because for whatever reason they are so partisan as to vote against their own self interest.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        Damn! I could write a paper on either or both of these two posts.Replying to Lucky 9:'I"do not understand would be (As good as I can transliterate it) "Ich Varschaist nicht.".Those who monitor this blog are pretty easily spotted and the best thing is simply disregard them unless you think they were so cleverly written you are compelled to answer them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    I would like no abortions to be part of our culture.My wife, during her 2nd pregnancy tried lifting something too heavy and started spotting. It got increasingly worse. She was advised to abort or have a severely damaged child. She refused and gave birth to a normal rather large infant., who turned out to be a truly great person. But don't look to me, ever, to approve more laws unless they are a matter of world shaking importance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 10 months, 1 week ago
      I am with you. Ideally people would use some protection to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I imagine there is a fair bit of long term regret when abortion is concerned. I am opposed to govt funding it.
      I also have concerns about PP and the potential
      Ethical abuses. https://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
        Ideally people would use some sort of protection against anything they don't want, making rational choices to do so in a timely manner. Some don't, and as a result wind up paying more and losing more time later contending with problems because of it. That kind of personal irresponsibility has nothing to with abortion in particular and is not an argument against the value of abortion when it is needed. Those who have an emotion aversion to abortion, even if they don't want to punish it, seem to be driven by something else -- influenced by the drumbeat of religious arguments and imagery promoting fallacies, all in a context of lack of understanding of basic principle of morality, human value, and rights.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
      That is not a justification for demeaning abortion. That your wife once chose to take a risk says nothing about the value of abortion to those who rationally choose it. We might like no pain, no measels and no colds to be part of our culture, but here in reality we must deal with them, just like unwanted pregnancies. Medical treatment to improve human life where necessary is a value, not something to look down on whether or not you want to make it illegal (as the church has). A mindset that abortion is somehow unsavory, surrounded by religionists and those under their influence "idealistically" promoting a "right to life" of cells, embryos and fetuses will bring back the prohibitions, overwhelming those who emotionally "feel" that abortion is somehow wrong but should be an unpunished evil, unable to defend it as a good.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    The Christian faith has flaws, as others do. My initial call out was that it is not an all or nothing situation. You and eww clearly disagree.

    Yet, your logic that "as you love yourself" indicates, implies or would result that an individual has no value is backwards. Every person that I know considers love to be a positive sentiment. Love yourself is an indication of self worth, not lack of it.

    And the neighbor comes second. Love AS you love yourself. So, if the neighbor is doing things of which you do not love, then no need to love the neighbor for those things. It is not all or nothing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
      Basing a philosophy on faith and mysticism is fundamentally flawed and irredeemable. That is all or nothing. It is contradictory to Ayn Rand's ideas and the theme of Atlas Shrugged in every way.

      Religious doctrine has repeated over and over the depravity of man. No one here said that loving one's own life is wrong or that love isn't a "positive sentiment" -- when selectively granted. A commandment to unconditionally love others, beginning with a supernatural deity, destroys the concepts of love, value, and self-worth. The religious injunction to love others does not say you can base it on what others do. A duty to love neighbors and enemies is the opposite. To try to salvage love as a "positive sentiment" based on the religion by ignoring the contradictions in the name of "it's not all or nothing" is logically hopeless.

      You seem to be trying to find good, modern secular values of individualism in religion as a source, regardless of all the contradictions. It isn't there. What proper common virtues today often associated with religion are the result of better thinking over time, not religion, and are contradicted and undermined by religious faith and mysticism throughout its history. They are not a result of religion and its essence, they evolved over time from people who were often otherwise religious at a time when religion dominated, but who were slowly climbing out of it. If they hadn't we would still be in the Dark Ages.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    They do what they can get away with. Their power has vastly declined over the centuries and they fear losing more followers, who are already inconsistent and, especially in this country, highly secularized. That they don't get away with what they used to and would like is not a reason to tolerate their false premises. It matters what people think.

    Those who are still inconsistent followers who think of the Church as representing an ideal even if not followed, would be freed from their guilt and the irrational influences in their lives if they would simply throw it all off and see it for what it is, making room for a rational philosophy that would improve their lives.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    "Wallowing in the mysterious." That's why scary films are so popular.Sharks seem to be the latest scary items, taking over from zombies. We love to be scared as long as we know that we're actually perfectly safe.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
      That motive in that kind of entertainment is a variation on suspense in fiction. It is not the mentality of those who metaphysically wallow in mystery.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
    I was posting about immigration and did not inend for this to become a symposium on religion.If I did, and we were debating, I would take the position that the entire story of Jesus (Yoshua in reality)is a fantasy made up by the Constantines in order to keep the Jews from making more trouble. They took a Jewish sect and elevated it to become the foremost part of the religion. Worked pretty good.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
      You can rationalize the "symposium" by observing that some other ideas immigrated to your thread.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 10 months, 1 week ago
        Regarding immigration, would you and Herb ban Christians? Would you ban every other religion as well, such as Muslims?

        Should they be allowed to be teachers in public schools? Judges? Able to vote? Should their children be taken away, for the kids "protection"?

        How far and how strong is your blanket condemnation?

        PS Someone else brought up the issue of religion regarding immigration, not I.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
          Ideas cannot be "banned" whether or not they are religious. Teachers, judges and others are selected for their qualifications. If someone holds irrational ideas and wants to abuse their position to indoctrinate with them then they are not qualified regardless of their religion. Teachers, in particular, should be chosen in accordance with the standards of parents, not government. If there is a market for how they teach then that is what they will be hired to do. It has nothing to do with banning religion.

          Opposing and arguing against wrong ideas, whether or not they are religious, does not mean government "banning" people who hold them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    You're making me remember stuff I posted days ago. I'm old. I can hardly remember what I posted yesterday, sometimes what I posted in the am during the pm.However, after swallowing several prevagen (Made from jellyfish guts) I went over some past posts and if you bother to do so as well, you'll discover we are nearly identical in our postings.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
    Some people hate to work. Others see it as a badge of honor. It is mine, I worked for it I've got it and I'm going to keep it or use it. My labor, my ideas, my talent brought it about and I will use it any way I choose. It is mine.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
      A badge of honor and a source of pride in creation of value.

      Others don't exactly hate it, but see it as an entitlement to be paid for showing up (except for "family leave") whether or not there is a connection between what they do and what they are paid. Most of the "jobs" rhetoric in politics now is based on the false premise that businesses and profits are justified supposedly only if they "provide jobs". That was a major theme of the Fabian Socialists, has been taken over and spouted with self-righteous demagoguery by Democrats, and is pandered to by Republicans. "Providing jobs" is one of the loud Trump themes while ignoring productivity and the rights of business owners.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
        The emphasis on jobs was needed because of all the jobs evaporated under Obama. To the owner or shareholders it is income, just as it is to the employee.The fact that a marketable product or service is now a viable enterprise is of great benefit to the owners, employees, and the public in general. This is capitalism in action.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 10 months, 1 week ago
          A growing economy is good. It does not make Trump an advocate of the rights of the individual and pandering to collectivist "jobs" rhetoric as the justification of business and profit does not address, let alone, reverse the downward trend into statism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    The "work" taken in context works.I work very hard to make words work on order to illustrate a concept so there isn't any doubt as to my meaning. I don't always succeed, but often it is because the reader pours his/her views into the words, thus distorting the meanings.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 10 months, 1 week ago
    Herb, you and have similar heritage. My grandfather with his uncle (close in age) fled Poland (Pomeranian region) prior to WW1. They obtained black-market passports and boarded a ship out of Gdansk to the US. When they got a US port (unknown) they paid off the watch officer and walked off the ship. They traveled to Minnesota where there was a northern European enclave. My grandmother emigrated from Silesia region after serving as an indentured servant and came to the US to meet up with family members. My grandfather became a miner then became a farmer in Keewaten, Mn.; he did become a US citizen. My mother's parents came from Holland. Her father joined the US Army (WW1) as a cook and became a US citizen through that. After the war, he was hired as a cook on a commercial passenger liner. Then became a co-owner of a Bar in Hoboken, NJ. My mother's mother emigrated from Oosterdam Holland and had family members in Passaic, NJ. She learned English and then went to work in a fabric mill and also became a citizen. So, I grew up in an immigrate household. I'm proud of my of my heritage and that my grandparents strived for the American Dream.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 months, 1 week ago
      That's the entire difference."They strived for the American dream." So many come to this country but their hearts remain where they came from, and so do their politics. In our parents and grandparents time, the honor was to become an American and not scorn the chance given to them by the freedom to become whatever you're willing to work for. My Grandpa was a working stiff, but on weekends, he rented a booth at Eastern Market and sold produce.along with my Grandma. They wound up owning the two family flat they lived in. In Poland or Russia, that was beyond their dreams.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo