Aaaaah, the wonderful world of outsourcing……
Keep counting jobs like these toward your ever-preached job growth Shrub.
Yes, Americans won’t do this work because they have to go to India to do it……..

always remember that the policies of globalization that bush so wholeheartedly embraces were policies signed by Clinton and embraced by the democrats of the time

it just goes to show that really, the dems and the repubs are the same damn party

ah, the horrors of globalism, tis a beautiful thing…unless you’re amitosh

Yes, it was signed on by Clinton with pressure from a super-majority republican congress, and exploited to the fullest by Bush.
How many vetoes did Clinton use during the 8 years of republican badgering? Bush uses the veto every single time he can with the dems in control, except when it comes to accepting money for his middle east escapade.
Yes, repubes and dems are both concerned with their constituents and the economy. However, the one good thing about the dems is that is they EVER get a super-majority congress and the presidency at the same time, we’ll FINALLY start subsidizing the effort to get off oil…………which will roll over into a global effort to do the same. We’re, actually, behind other countries in that area.
That, in itself, is reason enough to vote democratic on everything until the repubes get their act together.

Are we thinking about the same executive branch? If 70% of americans polled want out of iraq can’t change our presidents mind then what makes you think a ’super-majority’ GOP congress would do any better? No, it wasnt because he was pushed into doing it, although I’m sure he and other democrats would love for you to believe it, just as they would have us all believe that their is nothing they can do in congress to stop this war.

OK, what I should have said was this: Clinton compromised with a super-majority republican congress on many occasions, which led to some, obviously, shady decisions. However, do you see any compromise, whatsoever, coming from this republican president with the democratic congress.
But, then again, there’s the fundamental difference in party ideology. Democrats (civil rights, equal rights, etc.) are a party of compromise. Republicans (slavery, segregation, etc.) by percentage, do not compromise.

Blowhard -

What’s this about Republicans and slavery?

Blowhard-

I have to respond to this association of Repubelickens and segregation…

Where does Eisenhower fit in, how about the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960? How about sending troops to Little Rock? I suppose someone will point out some reason why these accomplishments should be disqualified. As for the Democrats and civil rights…last time I checked this is the party of Jefferson Davis, Orval Faubus, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd – not exactly champions of civil rights. Again, I am sure someone will point out reasons to disqualify these supporters of segregation as Democrats. I’ll counter with a reason why you’re wrong, then you’ll come back with some more bs. We can play that stupid game all day. The point is, your bias has blinded you to some fairly obvious historical facts. I recommend learning some history before making these sweeping generalizations.

if republicans are so much against slavery, why are they so oppossed to making our companies comply with american labor laws when working with foreign laborers? why did they make an exception for rules against de-facto-slavery for the marianas at the behest of tom delay? regardless of what may or may not have happened 10, 30, 200 years ago, the current consciense of the republican party is one that doesn’t care about labor rules in other countries because ‘hey, their not americans, they don’t have those rights’. In other words, they hide behind the laws they themselves have set up for themselves.
They arouse anger and anymosity towards a people they themselves bring here by providing them the jobs they so desperately need to help their families survive at salaries an american family couldn’t possibly make a living on. So they start a racist persecution of mexicans in order to galvanize their base behind what drives them most… racism!! if this was not the case, they would be very concerned about people being able to simply walk in from canada, yet no walls are going up there.

Are you guys piling on Blows by using history? Seriously? What, in any fantasy land, does that have to do with today’s ideology?

American history books are a complete joke. Again, what does that have to do with the fact that the republicans are the ones who want to build a wall. Need I say more? A wall.

Ole,

Well, you WENT and did it. BS?? You want to talk about BS? You, the person who toiled on about how using historical labels convoluted the discussion? Would you like me to dig up some of your posts.

IDEOLOGY, for Christ Sakes. Forget names. They’re meaningless. It’s Liberalism vs Conservatism and Conservatives want to retain the status quo which was SLAVERY then. You want BS? Try hypocrisy. That seems to be your mainstay.

Eisenhower? You SURE you want to portray Eisenhower as some staunch supporter of Civil Rights? AND as a representative of the GOP? He never voted and only picked the GOP party ‘cause he didn’t like Truman.

Midman,

Perhaps YOU should sit out as well if you’re going to lend support to Ole. Or are we going to hang EVERYONE on a simple slip-up? Yes, Arby DID say Republican, right after he said ideology. You couldn’t grasp the difference?

And as for affirmative action, I guess you’re okay with saying that we can hold blacks in abject slavery for a couple hundred years and exclude then from ANY of the civil rights, that we so piously point to with pride, for another 100 years.. Then, when those wrongs are PARTIALLY righted, you have problems with allowing the pendulum to swing the other way for a while to UNDO some, only some, of the wrongs.

They suffered. What ‘suffering’ does affirmative action do to you?

DD-

I think you missed the point. I was arguing against making generalizations like blowjob’s contention: “But, then again, there’s the fundamental difference in party ideology. Democrats (civil rights, equal rights, etc.) are a party of compromise. Republicans (slavery, segregation, etc.) by percentage, do not compromise.” Please do dig up as many of my posts as you like; I think I have consistently been arguing that generalizations like the one above are misleading. Examine your own statement “Conservatives want to retain the status quo which was SLAVERY”. The terms Republican/Conservative are used virtually interchangeably on this site, so I am just following suit when I mention, for example, that the Republicans by many accounts were the agents of change behind the abolition of slavery that followed the Civil War. This is a widely held view. I am sure that there are any number of interpretations that would either support or refute this interpretation. Notice I am not arguing that the Republicans are anti-slavery and the Democrats pro-slavery, I am just pointing out the fallacy of making sweeping generalizations like the one made by RealityBlows. I might just as well point out that the generalization that Republicans are the anti-big-government party is a fallacy by using the same example of the Civil War to suggest that it was the Republicans who actually precipitated the rise of the role of the federal government. In both cases I think it is clear that it is not so easy to make a distinction how a party or political perspective might align itself on any one particular issue.

Boy, I must’ve hit a wet spot for the Bloody Tampon, huh?
You’re just talking semantics man. I’m not hearing you deny today’s ‘conservative’ ideology resembling the ideas of slavery, oppression, segregation, etc.
So, for the record, you’re correct about the semantical crap Blood.

But, for once, for all of us involved, answer this question:

Which party would be more apt to approve legislation making homosexuality a crime? Or, approving immigration holding cells? Or, to take it a bit further, which party would be the first to invent legislation eliminating votes from the lower class?

Wedge issues. Pick a side.

Now, as far as the references to me and my post, naw nevermind, I already obviously offended you enough to call me blowjob. Guess you showed your hand huh?

Ole,

Not surprisingly, I agree and disagree. You make a dictum out of classroom discourse, dare I say, when it fits your needs. But you don’t seem to hold Weenie to that standard.

As to the gray area referencing Republican/Conservative, I admit it exists herein and the distinction can become abused. Of course, I assumed, from your demonstrated erudition, that you perceive the difference and are able to discern the intent of the writer. You do yourself no credit when you hang your rebuttals on so flimsy a thread.

Here’s the bottom line: The South has always been Conservative and the North has always been Liberal. Must be that the hot, humid weather addles the brain. Perhaps if we moved the Capitol to Duluth, we’d get more meaningful and responsive action out of our representatives.

I do what I can to squelch rhetorical nonsense when I see it. I am even willing to acknowledge my own tangents into rhetorical nonsense when it gets the better of me for the sake of this crusade. We live in a world of polarities and most of the time these polarities provide only a vague understanding of reality at best. Even the Earth’s magnetic field is really much more complicated than the dipole we use to model it and depend on when we employ a compass to find our way. I am disgusted by speech that seeks to reinforce polarities and so I do my part to oppose it. I think this is much more productive than attacking liberals or conservatives; Democrats or Republicans; or suporting someone or some party running for office. That’s not to say I don’t have a preference, but in so far as I am interested in discussing current affairs, what I hope to gain from participating in this kind of discourse is an increased discipline of not resorting to polarities for myself and my peers. I dontae my energy and my wealth to supporting particular causes and/or candidates, but I recognize this is a crude short-term strategy for achieving the ends I desire. I believe that conversation offers an alternative, or possibly an augmentation, to ‘picking a winner’ that can have lasting long-term consequences.

Just an observation for you Blood. Yes, your posts are well-articulated and somewhat on point for the most part. However, I have noticed a tendency to be anti-liberal. Now, before you blow a gasket, I’m just referencing this: “I am disgusted by speech that seeks to reinforce polarities and so I do my part to oppose it. I think this is much more productive than attacking liberals or conservatives; Democrats or Republicans; or suporting someone or some party running for office.”

So, before you get the award for most ‘middle of the road’ poster, take a step back and realize that you might have to start ripping on the conservatives/republicans or whatever you want to call them………

Just an observation.

Now THAT’s diplomacy………..

Coach-
Well-spoken. Indeed, you were being diplomatic. I never said I was above or beyond preference. Everybody has an individual perspective that they will undoubtedly measure against the competing perspectives of the wider-culture. That’s only natural. I think it is probably the hallmark of a functioning democracy to have these wider-perspectives that often resolve themselves into polarities. I try to point out instances where thses polarities are destructive. Undoubtedly, I am biased by my own preference for the conservative perspective, but I can point out numerous instances where I have argued against conservatives and/or Republicans – particularly on the issue of climate change. I am by no means seeking the dubious distinction of being “most middle-of-the-road”. The agenda that I would prefer to see be implemented has the best chance with Republicans in power. That’s not to say that I don’t recognize the many ways Republicans and conservatives fail our civilization, but I am willing to tolerate it to the extent that certain conditions do not deteriorate beyond what my understanding determines to be a nominal fluctuation, so long as the issues I believe are most important are resolved. Everybody does this to some extent. I just choose to articulate my awareness of it. Many people, on the other hand, want to believe that their allegiances are totally consistent with their own personal belief system. They are willing to subordinate their own belief system to an ideology in order to protect this need for consistency. One of the ways that this is most obvious occurs when people pile up historical facts to demonstrate nothing more than the false notion that their side is good and the other is bad. I think this is one of the most pernicious aspects of what passes for political discourse in popular culture today; it is causing a whole range of worthwhile perspectives and ideas to be passed by out of hand. To me, that is more threatenning than any singular policy put forth by Democrats or liberals. For this reason, my first duty is to try to prevent this condition from worsenning to the limited extent that I am capable. Make no mistake, Rebulicans and conservatives are just as guilty. RS is not the only place where I make my voice heard, but it is a fairly good place to engage with a certain political perspective. I have a different approach to seeking influence ‘my own people’. You will just have to take me on my word on this, but I also think that I have made it clear that I am willing to consider perspectives much wider than that of a typicla ‘Con.

affimitive action IS discriminatory, because it becomes about the color of someone’s skin, not their ability to do the work

if you’re competent and a hard worker, what does it matter what color your skin is?

as for the south being conservative, yes in a sense it is, but you’ll find plenty of libertals and libertarians down here, just as you’ll find a couple of consevative Yankee’s up above the Masy-Dixie line…but Mr. Dennis sir, the humidity is only a problem when one goes outside, all of our plantations are air conditioned now…

yea, amazing what saving so much on labor, healthcare and proper food and clothing will do for a plantation. Hell in time, they can even air condition the whole thing and never even have to make reparations to those folks families for having them taken from their homes, enslaved, demoralized, denied meaningful education or anything else remotely human or cmpassionate. Isn’t capitalism wonderful?

I agree with about 90% of what everyone said, 100% in the case of Jed and Coach, of course, but that’s ‘cause they’re teammates of a sort.

This is one of those bedrock, emotional issues that have two perspectives that are equally arguable. I refute nothing said. Affirmative Action IS discriminatory. I DO want the best in a life or death situation. But is ‘life’ as clear-cut/black-white as you infer? I don’t think so. If so, then you’d better ready the gallows for Bushney and their clan. I’m sorry, lots of folks died because of their mistake.

Oh wait, are you telling me that there’s a double standard? That ‘we’ can f**k over anyone we want for as long as we want and then simply say, “Okay, we’re through f**king over you,” and walk away unaccountable?

Let’s face it, you can make a case for any side of an argument and therein lies the point where Liberals and Conservatives (and Moderates?) part company. The arguments of Liberals almost always come down on the side of humanity while the arguments of Conservatives (Moderates?) almost always come down on the side of a vested view.

I’m sure you have an argument that counters my position.

i think it really depends on the issue, and how dyed-in-the-wool liberal or conservative someone is…conservatism by its very nature means resistant to change (one of the very reasons i never became one), while Liberalism, at least in its classical sense called for slight, gradual changes of the status quo…but that can get radical as to how much change someone wants

as for reparations or anything like that, why should we only give them to blacks? how about the japanese and the chinese who were exploited to work on the railroads? the Irish, who were treated like dog sh*t the minute they left the boat? Any of the Native Americans?

it opens up the floodgates, and really does no good…it sends the message that these people couldnt accomplish anything until the government that did such terrible wrongs to them redistributes wealth to people who have never seen a plantation or cotton in several generations…let the past stay in the past, but by all means give everyone the equality of opportunity (but not equality of results)

was the things that were done to these people terrible? yes, but the people who perpetrated this crimes are, for the most part, dead and gone–America is an entirely different country than it was a generation ago…it would be like holding Turkey accountable for the Ottoman Empire’s actions in Armenia, when the Turks of today had little to do with it

I don’t understand why the US and some contingent representing descendents of the enslaved, just doesn’t settle on a figure. The trasury could issue a few million checks and we could have done with the whole issue. A group of people was wronged; their descendents have a legitimate claim; let’s compensate and move on.

Ole,

Don’t you think that’s a tad too simplistic? If you’re the Con you say you are, who do you recommend undertake the task? The U.S. Government???? And how might we resolve claims? And what would constitute a claim? And how would the country benefit in the long run? (If giving blacks any advantages is the pariah everyone claims it to be, relative to the ultimate psychological well-being of the recipients, what would be the impact of such largesse?) Aren’t you advocating an extension of welfare?

Finally, and this is the kicker, you’d have to ‘entitle’ just about every black in this country. I can’t imagine many that DON’T have roots (sorry) to slavery.

Oh, are we going to pay for it by levying some burdensome tax on the rich? I like that one. And after the payoff, we can keep the tax going ‘cause next we’re going to have to pay for all those folks who had kin exploited in the coal mines and sweatshops.

I think you’d better sit down, have a tall, cool one and think over your suggestion.

because it’s like putting a bandaid on an amputated limb. It does nothing to resolve the situation but it let’s the participants hae the illusion of doing something (kind of like our politicians).

Want to help them, then make the war on poverty a real war with the urgency and actions that implies. make the schools in ALL poor neighborhoods be a place of advancement rather than a place to house the kids till they are old enough to be formally imprisoned. All bad actors know the importance of reaching the children in order to change the culture of a nation. The cambodians knew this, the germans knew this, the africans are conscripting children daily. Yet we don’t seem to see the importance of this, we allow our children to languish in institutions that cant even motivate them, much less teach them anything of lasting value. Then again, that would make too much sense and might even produce competitors to the elite that rule.

Touche

DD-
I have had several long cool ones and do not feel compelled to retract or edit my previous post. Well, on second thought, you raise a good point, even if you didn’t mean to: not all black Americans are descended from slaves – a minor point that can be worked out without the government’s involvement that I will return to in a bit, if I can remember to. I seriously believe that blacks have a legitimate claim for reparations. Any attempt to redress the wrongs of slavery would certainly be an imperfect one, but is worth undertaking. It’s the thought that counts. Or is it? I’m not really sure. I am sure that extending welfare is NOT what I’m advocating. In fact, I don’t equate being black with being on welfare. In case you do – I’m not saying that you do, but you implied that I do, so I will return the favor – I would like to point out that a one-and-done payment seems more like an END than an extension to said program, but of course that wasn’t my point. My point was to recompense a group of people who have a legitimate claim against the People of the United States of America in the same way that all other torts are handled, i.e. through the civil court system. The niggardly system of affirmative action is unique in its approach to recompensation as far as legal precedent is concerned and doesn’t really appear to be effective, so why not at least reconsider? In the end, I am willing to play along. I don’t feel threatened in any way by affirmative action – except for the fact that it really isn’t doing much to help blacks and sooner or later they’re going to demand some other kind of action. The sooner race ceases to be an issue that is returned to ad nauseum in this country, the sooner we can focus our energies elsewhere, so I am willing to consider all sorts of options. Doesn’t seem like the proponents of affirmative action would be similarly inclined. As far as the cost is concerned, it’s really not much. I mean how much is every black person owed above and beyond the privliges they enjoy as Americans? We are not starting from scratch – conditions have improved and opportunities do exist. Not to say, things couldn’t be better, but lets not get carried away. Concerning who should represent the blacks, I don’t exactly have my finger on the pulse of the black community, I don’t know who their leaders are. Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Fifty Cent? Oprah? Bill Clinton? How do class action suits typically coalesce? It would definitely be complicated, but it’s not undoable – for goodness sake, we’ve landed people on the moon. Anyway, the government wouldn’t necessarily need to get involved in determining who gets what, leave that up to the leaders of the black community. They can be trusted, can’t they?

Ole,

I was wrong to worry about you in the ‘earlier’ threads. You’re alive and well. Wonderful post. Your arguments are trenchant, insightful and telling.

The greatest reason for abandoning affirmative action is that the results are ineffectual in relation to the scale of undertaking. Emotionally, however, I am loathe to accept failure.

But given that I, all-knowing and powerful as I might be, am unable to single-handedly resolve the shortcomings, I concede to the obvious and inevitable, for the time being.

Punchbowl?

This has become an extremely interesting thread. I don’t think reparations are the answer as I think too many other problems would arise from such an action. If the government would pay the settlement with tax dollars, then wouldn’t some blacks be paying part of their own settlement? What if a person just moved here from Slovakia, would they have to pay part of reparations despite not having any ties to slavery? Would this drive a massive wedge between the races and potentially damage race relations? Clearly the goal of the money paid out would be to help those that are impoverished, however, many of those impoverished do not have the education that would allow them to best use that money and I’m afraid that after the pay out, things would not improve.
I think Jed is right in his assessment that the education system needs to be turned around to make a lasting improvement on the impoverished. And that will take more than just money, but also increased personal responsibility and better parenting.

Lets say my 401(k) holds stock in GE, and at some point I decide to file suit aginst GE because someone on MSNBC makes a libelous comment about me, I stand to recover the damages that I have incurred as a result of the libel. My investment in GE will suffer as the expense gets priced into GE’s stock, but my claim will compensate my greater loss of stature associated with the libel. GE’s loss gets distributed over total shareholder equity so my investment loss is minimized to a degree and will recover over time. This example seems analogous to me. I should add that the cost of recompensation could be distributed over the entire population over many years through an issue of debt, but paid in one whopping cash lump sum. Additionally, someone who purchased stock post libel, but pre-settlement, would incur some of the loss (like Midman’s Slovak); that’s just a part of the risk you must tolerate in order to stand to gain a return (likewise Slovak exposes herslef to risk when she immigrates to America in search of greener pastures). Last, we mustn’t confuse helping the impoverished with recompensation. ANYONE who sufferes damages is eligible for recompensation in the eyes of the law. We must not complicate the need for better education, healthcare, living-conditions with the tort.

Midman,

Excellent perspective and contribution. It’s a conundrum, Ole’s ‘remedy’ aside.

Let’s ‘add’ to the mix. If I’m a crackerjack lawyer litigating on behalf of my clients, I am SURE to bring up the parable of the Apple Tree when it comes time to affix a value to said compensation.

To wit, an Apple Tree planted 200 years ago would have produced a definable quantity of ‘reward.’ Moreover, the seed from the tree had the potential to create other trees, thus increasing the ‘reward.’ I would further argue that if true equality had existed 200 years ago, that a representative percentage would have achieved the wealth of Morgan and stature of Rockefeller. As such, the ‘reward’ should be adjusted accordingly.

All in all, I think the token offers of competitive advantage presently in place aren’t all THAT bad. Still, it’s a question requiring Solomanian wisdom and I don’t see much of that running about of late.

DD-

Excellent point about the apple tree. I would take it one step further and say that EVERY AMERICAN has been denied the benefits that would have arisen had slavery never happened. Likewise, EVERY AMERICAN has shouldered some of the burden of having to subsidize the marginalized. All the more reason the get on with and compensate these people, I suppose, though, that the fact that EVERY AMERICAN has suffere will have to offset the effect to descendents of the enslaved; still they should net positive.

Dennis – The Apple Seed story was a great touch. You know there would be plenty of lawyers out there that would go down that path. I think you hit the nail on the head with it being a conundrum and I don’t think any of those in power or the rest of us really have a clean and fair solution.