http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/13/why-trying-to-help-poor-countries-might-actually-hurt-them/
"The data suggested that the claims of the aid community were sometimes not borne out. Even as the level of foreign aid into Africa soared through the 1980s and 1990s, African economies were doing worse than ever..."
I read not long ago that USAID's imports of rice and poultry to Haiti to feed the hungry destroyed the agricultural industry. Yet I still think many types of aid could be successful if they were administered and overseen better. Dumping millions of dollars of food into a poor country that is still nearly 60% farmers probably isn't a great idea because now Haiti imports nearly half its food while it actually has the ability to feed itself but the people who would produce it literally can't make enough money to feed their own families by farming.
However, the U.S. also provides HIV/AIDS programs in Haiti that have provided antiretrovirals, testing, education, and counseling that has helped reduce the number of people infected not only with HIV but with many other STIs as well.
USAID's education programs have also put tens of thousands of Haitian children through school, trained teachers and provided textbooks for children that would have otherwise had no education at all.
So I'm going to side in the camp that says foreign aid when it's throughly researched and appropriately applied can actually do good things. Throwing food and money at people has always served to just fulfill that adage of "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."
When I was 15ish, when pictures of the starving masses of Biafra was plastered all over the news and the great call went out and Americans by far and large donated to help those impoverished. But I looked at the pictures and the background and saw nothing that suggested they could sustain themselves even with a mass of temporarily aid. There was no infra-structure at all, nothing that would suggest they could even rebound and eventually start their own farms. The land was a disease and they had no way of stopping the child rate.
I wrote a paper about it as if I was an alien accountant. The conclusion was simple supply and demand. A generation needed to disappear in order for the next one to have a better chance of survival. No one wanted to hear that. But after a few years, the eyes turned away and generations started to disappear. It happened in the states too, just in smaller enclaves where the ability to gather food was insufficient to maintain the welfare of the society. No one came to their aid and eventually nature balanced it all out.
I was in college during the first Ethiopian crisis back in the 70s. My biology teacher was a Zoologist and had other degrees, a very smart lady. She spoke on the crisis not as an economist but from the standpoint of a scientist, understanding the physiology of the people involved. She said that in that case, where the starvation was ongoing and had been harming the majority of the population, that feeding the masses at that late stage was actually not only pointless but detrimental, because anyone who was that deteriorated physically would not recover, and would likely be a vegetable for life, unable to care for themselves.
So in the end, any aid would be better used to sustain the less affected groups who were not deteriorated physically, and would recover. Because the harm done would only generate a population needing constant care and having no ability to feed itself. And also would only, if perpetuated through breeding, be a damaged gene pool as well.
Our government knew within three hours of delivery that the local governments were hijacking the aid for their personal profit and decided to continue the useless adventure for the sake of our ego.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YfZ1IFf-L._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
QuoteThis is the book which marked Frederick Forsyth's transition from journalist to author. A record of one of the most brutal conflicts the Third World has ever suffered, it has become a classic of modern war reporting. But it is more than that. It voices one man's outrage not only at the extremes of human violence, but also at the duplicity and self-interest of the Western Governments ' most notably, the British, who tacitly accepted or actively aided that violence.
A truly great read from a great Author. And if you don't know of him he is not of the left at all, but a voice that should not be missed. His fiction is also brilliant such as 'Day of the Jackal'.
Quote from: aitm on October 18, 2015, 10:57:48 AM
When I was 15ish, when pictures of the starving masses of Biafra was plastered all over the news and the great call went out and Americans by far and large donated to help those impoverished. But I looked at the pictures and the background and saw nothing that suggested they could sustain themselves even with a mass of temporarily aid. There was no infra-structure at all, nothing that would suggest they could even rebound and eventually start their own farms. The land was a disease and they had no way of stopping the child rate.
I wrote a paper about it as if I was an alien accountant. The conclusion was simple supply and demand. A generation needed to disappear in order for the next one to have a better chance of survival. No one wanted to hear that. But after a few years, the eyes turned away and generations started to disappear. It happened in the states too, just in smaller enclaves where the ability to gather food was insufficient to maintain the welfare of the society. No one came to their aid and eventually nature balanced it all out.
But Biafra wasn't a natural event ... it was a civil war. So when Southerners were having all their stuff burnt by Gen Sherman ... we should just turn lemons into lemonade? Kumba ya to that.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 18, 2015, 10:31:48 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/13/why-trying-to-help-poor-countries-might-actually-hurt-them/
"The data suggested that the claims of the aid community were sometimes not borne out. Even as the level of foreign aid into Africa soared through the 1980s and 1990s, African economies were doing worse than ever..."
Giving with one hand, while taking with the other ... colonialism lives. Also stupid foreign countries (too bad they aren't utopia like the US) harm themselves. Qaddafi hurt his country by trying to free it from the IMF ... and got destroyed for his trouble. Good thing all the Libyan gold reserves have been moved to Zurich for safe keeping, yes?
Oh, aid is bad. Go back in time, stop the Marshall Plan, and just hand all the W Europeans to Stalin's camp system ... it is just survival of the fittest. That goes for Britain too, Hitler is a good predator.
Quote from: aitm on October 18, 2015, 07:34:42 PM
Our government knew within three hours of delivery that the local governments were hijacking the aid for their personal profit and decided to continue the useless adventure for the sake of our ego.
It happened in Iraq where Maliki hid billions of dollars to build a fictitious hospital in Baghdad.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 05:23:04 AM
It happened in Iraq where Maliki hid billions of dollars to build a fictitious hospital in Baghdad.
That was the plan all along. Give baksheesh to repay the Shia for betraying them in 1991. Too bad the Kurds didn't get any of those $100 pallets of money ... or did that just go to Halliburton?
Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2015, 07:24:20 AM
That was the plan all along. Give baksheesh to repay the Shia for betraying them in 1991. Too bad the Kurds didn't get any of those $100 pallets of money ... or did that just go to Halliburton?
If it was a plan it was ill-conceived. They wanted to remove Saddam, not realizing that by doing so, the Shiites would gain power, a group of people more aligned with Iran, the US arch enemy. It basically backfired. The Saudis wanted Saddam out because he ran a secular government. The US obliged and removed him, then the Shiites took control. I believe some would call that poetic justice. More appropriately, it was a plan from a bunch of fucking morons.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 06:36:25 PM
If it was a plan it was ill-conceived. They wanted to remove Saddam, not realizing that by doing so, the Shiites would gain power, a group of people more aligned with Iran, the US arch enemy. It basically backfired. The Saudis wanted Saddam out because he ran a secular government. The US obliged and removed him, then the Shiites took control. I believe some would call that poetic justice. More appropriately, it was a plan from a bunch of fucking morons.
Everything American it seems, is ill conceived. And yes, the Saudis are idiot masters of us dhimmis. I want a swimming pool and a pony ... should I kill one million Iraqis, in the insane view that I can get what I want that way? Wants aren't law or even good politics. The Europeans aren't showing much IQ either. The "economic" refugees and "political" refugees are showing good sense. There is no way I would stay in Iraq or Syria for anything, even if I were born there. It worked out for my ancestors who got the Hell out of asshat Europe.
Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2015, 07:14:51 PM
Everything American it seems, is ill conceived. And yes, the Saudis are idiot masters of us dhimmis. I want a swimming pool and a pony ... should I kill one million Iraqis, in the insane view that I can get what I want that way? Wants aren't law or even good politics. The Europeans aren't showing much IQ either. The "economic" refugees and "political" refugees are showing good sense. There is no way I would stay in Iraq or Syria for anything, even if I were born there. It worked out for my ancestors who got the Hell out of asshat Europe.
So you are inadvertently acknowledging that the refugees, by going to Europe, are choosing a "better" place than their country of origin, and that you, not being in Europe but in the USA, that USA is better than EU. Hmmm... interesting...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 07:20:47 PM
So you are inadvertently acknowledging that the refugees, by going to Europe, are choosing a "better" place than their country of origin, and that you, not being in Europe but in the USA, that USA is better than EU. Hmmm... interesting...
Not exactly. Immigration doesn't always work out. It didn't work out well for my Czech ancestors, their homestead land was poor for agriculture and they were forced off the land they came so far to get "for the cost of their labor to farm it". From their POV, if I were Syrian or Iraqi I would have gotten myself to Europe by hook or by crook long ago. Similarly Mexicans and other Central Americans ... are smart to come to the US ... I hear more and more Spanish and don't mind it one bit. If I were Mexican today, I would get the hell out too, but Canada might be nicer than the US.
So no, W Europe isn't better and N America isn't better, but for people who want to better themselves, even if they are elite in their own society ... the perceived opportunities might be better here rather than there. What actually happens when one arrives ... varies.
I don't have a problem with aid if it's actually delivered to actually help a people, but all too often aid comes in the form of never ending debt to a nation and if the debts aren't paid we topple their government and install a puppet regime to benefit some corporate fancy.
Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2015, 07:40:48 PM
Not exactly. Immigration doesn't always work out. It didn't work out well for my Czech ancestors, their homestead land was poor for agriculture and they were forced off the land they came so far to get "for the cost of their labor to farm it". From their POV, if I were Syrian or Iraqi I would have gotten myself to Europe by hook or by crook long ago. Similarly Mexicans and other Central Americans ... are smart to come to the US ... I hear more and more Spanish and don't mind it one bit. If I were Mexican today, I would get the hell out too, but Canada might be nicer than the US.
So no, W Europe isn't better and N America isn't better, but for people who want to better themselves, even if they are elite in their own society ... the perceived opportunities might be better here rather than there. What actually happens when one arrives ... varies.
But the refugees are not choosing Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, or any of the Gulf states, even though these countries are quite rich, have the same religion (Islam) as many of the refugees. So why Europe? Of course remove the ocean, and most would be flocking to the US. So how do you explain that? I know you're not comfortable with the word "better", but how would you describe it?
My observations on Saudi Arabia.
Saudi is a hierarchical society, true the rulers get ratification from the religious authorities, and use that connection to administer but the system of control is essentially like any mediaeval European monarchy rather than being particularly Islamic in nature.
At the Top we have the royals they are more or less above the law. For instance women in the Royal family drive, and have cars with number plates which the police are not allowed to stop. A law might be invoked in a dispute between royals, but the battles are like those in a medieval kings court and it is about which set of courtiers are in, or have lost favour.
Then we have the connected Saudis, they are subject to the laws, but can use favours from above to get around it, but that would cause a loss of favour, depending on the seriousness of the charge, and their usefulness they can loose their favoured position.
Americans, subject to the law outside their enclosures, but the special relationship with America usually allows them to just be exported from the country rather than suffer under the law.
Europeans and wealthy muslims, subject to the law outside designated areas and sometimes within, they do have some connections so can escape the law, but on occasion like with any dictatorship arbitrary individuals can be made an example of when the authorities want to bring the whole group back under control.
Unconnected Saudis are capable of bribing minor officials, but generally come under the full force of the Law.
Other islamic people the most hated group in Saudi not wanted and not trusted, unless going to or from Mecca and spending money or selling things cheep.
Non Islamic workers basically indentured slaves.
This is how things were twenty-thirty years ago or at least how I saw them and others told me, and I don't think they have changed much since.
For all the rhetoric it is not particularly islamic in nature and for most muslims not a destination of choice at all.
The House of Saudi is hated by most in the islamic world, but has money and power, think of Henry the 8th or Philip of Spain.
Josephpalazzo wrote:QuoteBut the refugees are not choosing Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, or any of the Gulf states, even though these countries are quite rich, have the same religion (Islam) as many of the refugees. So why Europe?
To spread Islam. Islam is expansionist. Imperialistic. Totalitarian.
See here:
* The Koran includes instructions for its own spread.
* Permission to spread Islam by war.
* Lands must be conquered.
* Islam must be your first allegiance.
* Islam commands its followers to create a government that supports it.
* Islam must always be defended.
source (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/10/terrifying-brilliance-of-islamic.html)
Europe must be turned into an Islamic hegemony, with the willing permission of the present EU govenments.
I cannot believe that Merkel, Hollande, Cameron et al are unaware of this.
The US, Canada, Australia, etc. are also on the 'to do' list. Europe is more convenient being closer.
@pr126
I'm waiting for Baruch to answer.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 08:06:18 PM
But the refugees are not choosing Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, or any of the Gulf states, even though these countries are quite rich, have the same religion (Islam) as many of the refugees. So why Europe? Of course remove the ocean, and most would be flocking to the US. So how do you explain that? I know you're not comfortable with the word "better", but how would you describe it?
Difference between "are better" and "think better". Just because many immigrants for many reasons want to get to the EU or the US ... doesn't mean we "are better" ... it is because the immigrants have been sold, even indirectly by advertisement, that the EU or US are utopias. Land speculators did the same with potential immigrants from Europe, and some of my ancestors fell for the false advertising. No matter where you live, you put in your 40-80 years and then die.
Of course this won't impress any chauvinist ... Denmark #1, Denmark #1 (just because I don't want to point fingers). Also Jonb answered quite well why all Muslims don't immediately move to Qatar. Have you ever seen any pictures of that place?
Quote from: Baruch on October 22, 2015, 07:05:27 AM
Difference between "are better" and "think better". Just because many immigrants for many reasons want to get to the EU or the US ... doesn't mean we "are better" ... it is because the immigrants have been sold, even indirectly by advertisement, that the EU or US are utopias. Land speculators did the same with potential immigrants from Europe, and some of my ancestors fell for the false advertising. No matter where you live, you put in your 40-80 years and then die.
US/EU ads in Syria??? You must be kidding. I think you're barking on the wrong tree. They're going there because they know these are open societies, contrary to the Gulf states, which is a bastion of oppression.
(http://media.maps101.com/SUB/mideast/ME_04_PopDens.gif)
This is a map of the population densities around Syria. One might notice that there are large areas of very low population, deserts.
Now place yourself in Syria you want to get out are you going to go into the desert where there is nothing not even water and presumably if you are somehow able to carry all you need are you going to travel so far just to get to the nearest points in Saudi that have any population at all with people that can help you.
Or are you going to pop over the boarder into Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.
There is another choice to go to Iraq where the fighting is as bad.
Funnily enough most Syrian refugees go ...........
Can you guess?
Rumble of drums . . . . .. . . .
to......
wait for it. . . wait for it
Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey
Was that such a big surprise?
Interesting. So how come they end up in Europe?
Could it be that those arriving in Europe are not refugees at all?
Opportunitist perhaps?
Quote from: jonb on October 22, 2015, 11:50:54 AM
(http://media.maps101.com/SUB/mideast/ME_04_PopDens.gif)
This is a map of the population densities around Syria. One might notice that there are large areas of very low population, deserts.
Now place yourself in Syria you want to get out are you going to go into the desert where there is nothing not even water and presumably if you are somehow able to carry all you need are you going to travel so far just to get to the nearest points in Saudi that have any population at all with people that can help you.
Or are you going to pop over the boarder into Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.
There is another choice to go to Iraq where the fighting is as bad.
Point taken.
Aside note: I appreciate this part of your post for its objectivity. You can skip the needless fanfare at the end of your post as it doesn't contribute anything.
Quote from: pr126 on October 22, 2015, 12:06:51 PM
Interesting. So how come they end up in Europe?
Could it be that those arriving in Europe are not refugees at all?
Opportunitist perhaps?
We are all opportunists ... some are just more motivated by carrot vs stick.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 22, 2015, 10:01:48 AM
US/EU ads in Syria??? You must be kidding. I think you're barking on the wrong tree. They're going there because they know these are open societies, contrary to the Gulf states, which is a bastion of oppression.
No need for advertising .. the evil MSM shows us all living like in the Dallas TV show.
Quote from: Baruch on October 22, 2015, 01:18:08 PM
No need for advertising .. the evil MSM shows us all living like in the Dallas TV show.
Dallas was all cowboy style, don't know if that would consider as good advertising but then again, compared to Assad, anything would be an improvement...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 22, 2015, 02:11:18 PM
Dallas was all cowboy style, don't know if that would consider as good advertising but then again, compared to Assad, anything would be an improvement...
Generally evil rulers are intolerant of rebellions. The American rebels managed to tar and feather old King George with that epithet. And young Assad ... may have had no alternative when old Assad died ... does Kim Jong Un really have any choice? We will never know what a wonderful father Hitler could have been ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 07:18:11 AM
Generally evil rulers are intolerant of rebellions.
It's one way of seeing things. But generally, no law, no authority, and society will fast track into chaos. People want stability, on the political level, so they can live their lives on a personal level - have jobs, raise family, buy a house, etc. The problem with dictators is they don't know when to quit. That's why democracy is preferable, not that's perfect but it allows a bloodless transition of power.
QuoteThe American rebels managed to tar and feather old King George with that epithet.
Those Americans were badass. One legacy is that they built a democracy, one that stood alone on this planet for several decades before it was emulated elsewhere.
Quote
And young Assad ... may have had no alternative when old Assad died ... does Kim Jong Un really have any choice?
Yes he had, young Assad could have been a reformer, a benevolent dictator, a philosopher-king. We all make choices in life, so it goes for those who inherit the governance of a country.
Help is needed for publics relations. It's a little part of the big whole of "Hey look, we are distiributing democracy and freedom around and providing some aid for the ones we don't want to invade, because it is not profitable".
"The problem with dictators is they don't know when to quit. That's why democracy is preferable, not that's perfect but it allows a bloodless transition of power." ... I agree completely. But preferring democratic crime to tyrannical crime ... says less than it seems to.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 10:14:31 AM
"The problem with dictators is they don't know when to quit. That's why democracy is preferable, not that's perfect but it allows a bloodless transition of power." ... I agree completely. But preferring democratic crime to tyrannical crime ... says less than it seems to.
There's more to life than just crime, otherwise we would all be cavemen, clubbing each other to get the females in our caves. Democracy also means 1) rule of law, 2)constitutional individual rights, and 3) a secular government. You might consider me as a mouthpiece for Western civilization, but in spite of all its imperfections, I prefer it to any other civilization, present and past.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 10:48:41 AM
There's more to life than just crime, otherwise we would all be cavemen, clubbing each other to get the females in our caves. Democracy also means 1) rule of law, 2)constitutional individual rights, and 3) a secular government. You might consider me as a mouthpiece for Western civilization, but in spite of all its imperfections, I prefer it to any other civilization, present and past.
But we are all cave men, just ask the feminists who post here ;-) You have great Civics 101 quotes ... to bad it is all false. And of course, given we don't know any better, everyone prefers their own country and time period.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 03:34:02 PM
But we are all cave men, just ask the feminists who post here ;-) You have great Civics 101 quotes ... to bad it is all false. And of course, given we don't know any better, everyone prefers their own country and time period.
You confuse what's in practice and what's in theory. We might not have perfect democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism in practice but we have it in theory. Now imagine those countries who don't even have those in theory. That's why generally speaking, the people leave those countries who don't have them for countries that have them. I'd rather have imperfect democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism than nothing but brutal repression/dictatorship.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 03:45:20 PM
You confuse what's in practice and what's in theory. We might not have perfect democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism in practice but we have it in theory. Now imagine those countries who don't even have those in theory. That's why generally speaking, the people leave those countries who don't have them for countries that have them. I'd rather have imperfect democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism than nothing but brutal repression/dictatorship.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
Funny thing. Image that you live in a place where your leaders are pretty much assholes, but your personal life and affairs are left alone and you can feed your family. Along comes someone to invade your country, someone who almost never has a war where they come from, but brings it to your country and it goes on and on and on for years. You have a shot at getting out of the place where it's never ending war and your choices are to a country where another asshole rules and where you can pretty much be assured of being treated like shit the rest of your life of you can go to the country that is importing war to your country and live pretty good. It's not a tough choice to make.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 07:18:51 PM
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
And where do you prefer to live - imperfect democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism USA or brutal repression/dictatorship Syria?
If I were a Syrian patriot, I know what my answer would be ... as long as hope held out. But as per my immigrant ancestors, if there was no hope, you have to think of the children. But America? Maybe not, there is more than one First World country. In cartoons we can sometimes deal with things we can't do otherwise. In the anime cartoon Hitalia ... the character of the American is always an overbearing egomaniac ... maybe that isn't the best model? Hitalia is an attempt by the Japanese to deal with WW II on a child-like level, and even handedly. I suspect that Japanese children have greatest sympathy for the character of the Japanese guy ;-)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 05:54:07 AM
And where do you prefer to live - imperfect democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism USA or brutal repression/dictatorship Syria?
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 10:35:22 AM
If I were a Syrian patriot, I know what my answer would be ... as long as hope held out. But as per my immigrant ancestors, if there was no hope, you have to think of the children. But America? Maybe not, there is more than one First World country. In cartoons we can sometimes deal with things we can't do otherwise. In the anime cartoon Hitalia ... the character of the American is always an overbearing egomaniac ... maybe that isn't the best model? Hitalia is an attempt by the Japanese to deal with WW II on a child-like level, and even handedly. I suspect that Japanese children have greatest sympathy for the character of the Japanese guy ;-)
My question did not presuppose that you could be a Syrian patriot, so stop dodging the question. BTW, many Syrian patriots would jump on the first flight to the USA if they were allowed to. In general, people want stability so that they can live their "normal" lives, whatever their culture has defined as being normal. Repression in Syria led to the present situation, and the West looks pretty good for Syrians fleeing from a war torn country. Anyway, your dodging the question is an indication of your refusal to examine your premises. You should consider that such denial can be harmful to yourself.
i can imagine waking up tomorrow in the body of another person, of different nationality, sex, race, language etc ... and dealing with it as a fact on the ground. Would your chauvinism just leave you peeing your pants? Of course, as an American, if one has to be a chauvinist, one would best do American chauvinism ;-) But most posters here are not American ... so I am fine if they toot their own horns ... as I am fine with you too.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 03:01:40 PM
i can imagine waking up tomorrow in the body of another person, of different nationality, sex, race, language etc ... and dealing with it as a fact on the ground. Would your chauvinism just leave you peeing your pants? Of course, as an American, if one has to be a chauvinist, one would best do American chauvinism ;-) But most posters here are not American ... so I am fine if they toot their own horns ... as I am fine with you too.
I wasn't talking about nationalism in which the word "chauvinism" would apply, I was talking about imperfect democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism versus brutal repression/dictatorship. Using the US for the former, and Syria for the latter was not important, I just chose those two to make it more close to current events. As usually, you totally missed the point.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 03:06:49 PM
I wasn't talking about nationalism in which the word "chauvinism" would apply, I was talking about imperfect democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism versus brutal repression/dictatorship. Using the US for the former, and Syria for the latter was not important, I just chose those two to make it more close to current events. As usually, you totally missed the point.
You did successfully clarify your point ... on second attempt ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 03:08:44 PM
You did successfully clarify your point ... on second attempt ;-)
So my guess is that you choose Syria. If I knew you personally, I would fork out the money and buy you the plane ticket to Syria, one way please as I doubt very much you would need a return ticket...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 03:25:57 PM
So my guess is that you choose Syria. If I knew you personally, I would fork out the money and buy you the plane ticket to Syria, one way please as I doubt very much you would need a return ticket...
I am not Syrian ... I put it out as a hypothetical. My daughter once knew a young Christian man from Syria ... and he didn't seem particularly horrible. And no, neither you nor anyone else knows anyone on the Internet, personally ... as a rule. Our positions aren't as far apart as our means of talking about them ;-)
Or are you concerned that all Jews are Israelis or all Jews are stateless or some other anachronistic false charge? That may be Pr126 though. It seems to me that your politics is like a Notre Dame football fan ... where even when the quarterback throws an interception, it is still a good play, just because it was the Notre Dame football team that made it. My mother is like that every game day with our favorite team. It is a horror, if I even notice, let alone comment, that our favorite team made a bad play, or the other team made a good one.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 06:27:22 PM
I am not Syrian ... I put it out as a hypothetical. My daughter once knew a young Christian man from Syria ... and he didn't seem particularly horrible. And no, neither you nor anyone else knows anyone on the Internet, personally ... as a rule. Our positions aren't as far apart as our means of talking about them ;-)
Or are you concerned that all Jews are Israelis or all Jews are stateless or some other anachronistic false charge? That may be Pr126 though. It seems to me that your politics is like a Notre Dame football fan ... where even when the quarterback throws an interception, it is still a good play, just because it was the Notre Dame football team that made it. My mother is like that every game day with our favorite team. It is a horror, if I even notice, let alone comment, that our favorite team made a bad play, or the other team made a good one.
Well, you didn't answer my question, and like the old saying, "if you don't answer, someone else will", so I answered the question for you.
I didn't say that Syrians are bad, but you do know that the country is devastated, or do you live in a complete bubble?
Football stinks, but I am a staunch supporter of democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism. Even if it's imperfect, I'll choose that to brutal repression/dictatorship any time of the day. Unlike you, I know what team I am on.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 06:56:18 AM
Well, you didn't answer my question, and like the old saying, "if you don't answer, someone else will", so I answered the question for you.
I didn't say that Syrians are bad, but you do know that the country is devastated, or do you live in a complete bubble?
Football stinks, but I am a staunch supporter of democracy/ruleoflaw/humanrights/secularism. Even if it's imperfect, I'll choose that to brutal repression/dictatorship any time of the day. Unlike you, I know what team I am on.
There is the essential difference between us. For me democracy is not about a few people at the top. Just supporting my side right or wrong is tyranny by the mob. Democracy for me is about the people and for it to work the people have to hold the leaders to account, it is our duty.
Criticism of our own is demanded of the democrat, failure to do so invites tyranny.
Your position actually leads us to question which team you are on, yes you stand this side of a line, but you seem to have no conception as to what the ethos of this team is all about. It very much looks like you would be happier on the other side calling for strong government and petty dictatorship.
QuoteUnlike you, I know what team I am on.
For this is the clarion call of every tyrant.
Quote from: jonb on October 25, 2015, 07:22:40 AM
There is the essential difference between us. For me democracy is not about a few people at the top. Just supporting my side right or wrong is tyranny by the mob. Democracy for me is about the people and for it to work the people have to hold the leaders to account, it is our duty.
Criticism of our own is demanded of the democrat, failure to do so invites tyranny.
Your position actually leads us to question which team you are on, yes you stand this side of a line, but you seem to have no conception as to what the ethos of this team is all about. It very much looks like you would be happier on the other side calling for strong government and petty dictatorship.
For this is the clarion call of every tyrant.
Eventually GB rejected Oliver Cromwell ... but the American Revolutionaries accepted him, being made up mostly of Cromwellian exiles. This is the part of the special relationship that can never be bridged. Americans have totally failed to bring government to account ... we might as well join the Waffen SS ;-(
"Unlike you, I know what team I am on." ... I am past being on anyone's team. Like Groucho Marx ... I won't join any club that is willing to have me ;-) Otherwise your statement could imply ... anti-Semitism. Taken neutrally .. you couldn't be more wrong.
Baruch You have lost me, I don't know who the second paragraph is addressed to, or what about.
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
Like Groucho Marx ... I won't join any club that is willing to have me ...
The Jews have been successful by cleverly using self-deprecation - the strategy is: before you laugh at me, let me laugh at myself first. It's what you call turning a liability into an asset. It's quite disarming.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 02:21:48 PM
The Jews have been successful by cleverly using self-deprecation - the strategy is: before you laugh at me, let me laugh at myself first. It's what you call turning a liability into an asset. It's quite disarming.
So why don't you look like the Venus De Milo?
If we had been powerful, we would have put your Italian heads on spikes ... we aren't better, just Jewish.
Quote from: jonb on October 25, 2015, 02:19:35 PM
Baruch You have lost me, I don't know who the second paragraph is addressed to, or what about.
Second paragraph is to Joe, sorry. He thinks I have to support the Chicago Cubs, even if they never get the baseball pennant or the world series ever again. Politics here (and probably over there) is just sport ... with all the cheating going on. I care about fair play ... because I am stupid.
Gosh, some people, it's just not cricket is it?
(http://archive.mid-day.com/photos/plog-content/images/sports/howzzat-bizarre-incidents-in-cricket/miandad-lillee.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 03:24:27 PM
So why don't you look like the Venus De Milo?
Irrelevant.
QuoteIf we had been powerful, we would have put your Italian heads on spikes ... we aren't better, just Jewish.
It's not about power but tricking the audience. You do it well... NOT
Quote from: jonb on October 25, 2015, 02:19:35 PM
Baruch You have lost me, I don't know who the second paragraph is addressed to, or what about.
LOL, I, like a few others, think he gets lost all by himself.
Quote from: aitm on October 25, 2015, 05:00:35 PM
LOL, I, like a few others, think he gets lost all by himself.
To discover anything at first you have to get lost.
https://youtu.be/5v8habYTfHU
Quote from: jonb on October 25, 2015, 06:05:20 PM
To discover anything at first you have to get lost.
https://youtu.be/5v8habYTfHU
Super awesome ... are you the real retired professor here? ;-))
Quote from: aitm on October 25, 2015, 05:00:35 PM
LOL, I, like a few others, think he gets lost all by himself.
In Baruch's case, "lost" is a kind word...
Oh yes Jose, we can recognise just where you are coming from-
(https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAX0AAAAJDlhOTE0ZGVlLTAzOWUtNDNkOC04NWY0LWVhNzE5MGRhZDQ0ZQ.jpg)