Pangloss

One of the interesting things about this story is that it seems to be breaking out even though the mainstream outlets aren't covering it yet (presumably because it's unconfirmed). In a sense, the Internet is OBE'ing the mainstream media. This could turn out to be a bad thing for the reputation of the blogosphere if the story turns out to be false, or it could turn out to be a bad thing for the reputation of the mainstream media if it turns out to be true. Wouldn't it be interesting if this story turned out to be true, and became household knowledge, all before it was ever reported on a major network news broadcast? This may turn out to be an interesting example of the tricky nature of news stories in the digital age.

I hope all the far left crowd is watching what's happening in France this week.

If you find out let me know. Near as I could tell, George Will got a calculator and a list of budgets and added it up himself. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22%246.6+trillion%22+poverty Well things accumulate over time -- you don't have to buy each of those items each year, and nobody said they were NEW cars, DVD players or computers -- but really you're asking the wrong question. The Census Bureau actually asked these people what they own, and that's what they were told. So we already know that they have these things. So the right question is, assuming they weren't lying (and presumably a percentage were verified, because that's standard CB procedure), or do they in fact have other sources of income, plus, perhaps, significant credit card debt? Put another way, do we actually have a poverty problem in this country at all? Or is it more accurate to say we have a lot of people who aren't keeping up with the Joneses, and we CALL it a "poverty problem"? I don't know the answer to that question, but here's my real point, which is the same point I made when we discussed this before: You don't know either. We know exactly how many people own 2 cars, a home, a computer, a DVD player, have a job and health care. We have NO idea how many people own none of those things and are absolutely destitute. We don't collect that information! So really what it all boils down to is that we're losing a lot of sleep over something we really have no idea if even exists.

Ow. =P

I don't understand. When have I ever claimed to speak for South Floridians?

And yet new home starts are UP over the last few years -- more people buying homes than ever before. As for the so-called "poverty-rate", you're talking about a group of people that typically owns two cars, owns their home, has a DVD player and a TV, has a computer, has a job and has access to health care. That's not what I call "poverty", but that's what the US Census Bureau and the mainstream media calls poverty. Since the 1960s we've spent $6.6 trillion on the "war on poverty". Ignore them? We've done anything but.

Ah yes, those evil conservatives, always trying to destroy society. Darn them! No, that's the worst way to "pep up the economy", because it would rob everyone of any motivation or incentive.

That does seem to be the case. I don't know anyone who hasn't formed an opinion about most of the major political issues, and it doesn't seem like that was the case at all 20 years ago (just to pick a number out of a hat). The voting public is, by and large, engaged, even if they aren't always, well, voting. Has to count for something.

I agree that this approach has come to dominate modern mainstream political discussion. It's one of the reasons we frown upon it, and do our best to eliminate it, here, through the observance and avoidance of logical fallacies. Interestingly, I've started to see more observance of logical fallacies in the mainstream debate as well. I saw a mainstream news story the other day that tried to balance an obvious logical fallacy, and I've seen more columnists lately using the phrase "straw man" without simply using it to dismiss an opposition point. I've been thinking about putting together a post/blog-entry on this but I haven't seen enough examples of it yet.

Well for one thing it helps our economy by keeping those pension funds liquid so the government doesn't have to send me a massive bill to pay those retirees at a fraction of what they're actually owed. That alone makes outsourcing worth it in a virtually-fully-employed economy. Another factor is something ABC News the other day called "insourcing", which is that a growing sector of the American labor force is now employed by foreign companies who are localizing their businesses in the US, either to hit our markets or to take advantage of our tax situation. These aren't cheap jobs, either -- beats workin' at WalMart. Frankly the whole outsourcing deal is a red herring and a meaningless buzzword for the far left. Historians are going to write about the whole "outsourcing scare" from the perspective of how we ran around and tore out our hair about it, but in the end it made little difference except to keep American businesses competitive.

Oh yeah, for sure. (grin) Good points.

I'm afraid that angle has already been covered, and we're still coming up short. American businesses are already required by the Federal government to collect citizenship documentation on new hires. If they are unable to produce it, they cannot remain (legally) employed. Enforcement has always been problematic, but I can tell you that my wife handles this task for a small manufacturing firm in a large Latino community here in South Florida, and they don't even consider skirting the law on this, because the penalty is so harsh and the business is so important -- the livlihood of everyone who works there would be at risk. And virtually all companies look at it that way. So really "the problem" falls into two areas: 1) Cash-based businesses. (Like landscaping or house-cleaning.) 2) Fake documentation. (I.E. the illegals get their hands on fake green cards or passports/driver's licenses, and lie to employers.)

Red Dawn has actually acquired a certain appeal over the years, in part due to nostalgia, but there's also a certain degree of appreciation for the film's actual cinematic value, in part due to the reflection it casts upon our society during that time frame (i.e. towards the end of the cold war period). It also has a strong visual concept and brought the cold war home to a new generation in a fairly powerful way, which of course goes right to the heart of what movies are all about. It's still not a very good movie, IMO. But that's just my opinion. Getting back to the subject at hand, I'm not a big fan of "top" lists, but I'll be happy to list several classic films that still play well today: 1) Casablanca -- An amazing movie that plays astonishingly well even today. I defy any human being to watch the La Marseillaise scene without getting a lump in their throat. (#2 on the AFI Top 100.) 2) Sunset Blvd. -- Yeah, that's actually how it's spelled. Part of what makes this movie so amazing is the story behind it. The ironies and reflections on reality are a bit mind-blowing even after all these years. Noire purists usually list The Maltese Falcon, but unlike Falcon, Sunset actually still plays well today. Watch it. You won't be disappointed. (#12 on the AFI Top 100.) 3) North by Northwest -- No "greatest" list is complete without at least a mention of The Master, and this one has always been my personal favorite. Modern film owes more to Hitchcock than any other single individual. In particular, this film represents the pinnacle of one of his favorite story dynamics -- a good man caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hitch so popularized that dynamic that it still influences movies today. (#40 on the AFI Top 100.) 4) Network -- The birth of the modern socio-political satire, made all the more fascinating by how it all came true (and more). Inspired in part by the story of local television reporter Christine Chubbuck, who on her morning talk show in 1974, said, "In keeping with Channel 40's policy of bringing you the latest in blood and guts in living color, we bring you another first, an attempted suicide." -- and then shot herself in the head. Nothing about modern media has ever been quite the same since. (#66 on the AFI Top 100.) 5) Shichinin no samurai -- As with Hitch, so much we include Kurosawa. "The Seven Samurai" made the career of Toshiro Mifune, but in my view the real performance here is that of Takashi Shimura (tragically known mostly to western film-goers from the Godzilla series). The ultimate, original "movie for guys who like movies". 6) Jaws -- As with Hitch and Kurosawa, so must we include Spielberg. Watch it again today, and just ignore the fact that it's a "scary shark movie" and look at the pure film-making aspect of it. It's an amazing piece of work. (#48 on the AFI Top 100.) Jaws is similar to "Red Dawn", by the way. Purists hated Jaws, and along with Star Wars would constantly cite it in the 1980s as a sign that movies were in decline. It seems obvious now in restrospect how wrong they were, but it's important to understand that the reason they were wrong is not just because movies make more money now. It's because they're still good.

Fascinating editorial today by Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby. Mallaby is not a conservative -- he spent 13 years writing for The Economist, a British paper that follows economic news and which has been a frequent critic of the Bush and Blair administrations (as Mallaby has been). This is a guy who writes books about apartheid and the World Bank, folks, not Rush Limbaugh and Christian evangelism. He knows his stuff. His editorials make frequent appearances on liberal as well as conservative blogs. And he has written editorials that are extremely critical of the Bush administration, such as this one, criticizing his economic policies. He's seen by most as an objective, fair-minded observer. And yet here he is, saying that American business is at the top of its game. Gosh. Guess he can toss his invite to the next Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony. And forget about that Pulitzer! This page may be subscription-based, so I'll post a few good quotes along with my comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/26/AR2006032600878.html Fascinating. The nightly news certainly seems to tell a different story, doesn't it? All I hear about is layoffs and losses and GM and Ford. As if the "Fortune 500" were actually the "Misfortunate 2"! Mallaby goes on to talk about the reasons for this success: Imagine that. We're actually doing something right. Go figure. And here I thought we were on the brink of decay and collapse! A final thought: Darn tootin'. And see what I mean about balance? He's right on both of those counts, as far as I'm concerned, although I realize he doesn't make a case here for the last point (it's the last sentence in the piece).

I'll settle for dozen centuries of superpower status. What's forgotten about the Greek and Roman empires isn't that they fell, but that they lasted for so long. Why do you want to prevent current illegals whom you've granted amnesty to from becoming citizens in the future?

It's apt that you should mention Roman slavery in this discussion, gcol. To some extent, slavery was actually a form of immigration in ancient Rome. House slaves typically received regular payment, and traditionally had citizenship granted to them upon successful completion of their careers. Of course, woe be unto those who fell into the hands of bad or poor owners. It was definitely slavery, no mistake about that. But it was very different from the kind of slavery that was practiced in more modern times. (Our picture of this, of course, is unclear. There are many documented indications that, for example, the life of a gladiator during the Republic was a bit of a "high life" -- good food and accomodations, women, etc. Makes sense -- they were a big investment. On the other hand, that same society (in that same time period) produced the Spartacus revolt. Go figure.) Regarding your point about "history repeating itself", I'm reminded of another bit of Rome-related trivia. A former slave, and all of his or her descendents, were still beholden to the former master, in the form of the patron-client relationship, which is the ultimate source of the modern social structure known as the "mafia". Although the history books don't dwell on it, many historians believe that this dynamic is in fact what really "ran" Rome for the entire 11 centuries of its primary form of existence, and perhaps beyond. We don't know exactly when that practice started, and of course it's never really ended.

The answer to the last question is an unequivocal and historically well-documented "yes". It's certainly no panacea, but successful immigration has historically had a tremendous impact on the "home countries". Often it's an indirect and perhaps even unintentional impact, but in other cases (such as the current case of "Cuban exile groups"), the impact can be not only real and direct, but can actually reshape an entire economy. Not to mention the political impact. No, we don't want more sub-standard housing and quality of life in this country. I certainly agree with you there.

Great post. But ultimately I'm afraid it's flawed, because you're not warning people about the need to react to important dangers, you're actually criticizing people for not reaction to the specific dangers that you perceive. That's not societal protection, that's ideology. Specific flaws in your reasoning: 1) Christianity is not inherently destructive. 2) It isn't responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. 3) While surely "dark ages" were not a good thing, there was a benefit that arose from them in the form of the modern, moral society, which compares quite favorably to a Roman society that does not deserve your lionization. 4) The situation today is not like the situation in the 1930s. Today we suffer from a plethora of things which we can react to, and a culture that supports and even demands immediate reaction on a godly scale. Isn't some sort of balance preferable? All that having been said, I'm not being sarcastic when I say that was a great post. I found a great deal about it to agree with and I share many of your concerns, for example your analysis of the current American culture and the situation in Renaissance Europe. Such is the nature of online communication that I don't have the opportunity to nod at the appropriate places, but please consider some nodding to have taken place anyway. ;-)

Well it's not up to the US to provide everyone in the US with a job either. But I guess that's another discussion. I don't equate the term "enforcing current immigration laws" with the issue of low-wage labor. I equate that term with the issue of security. And on that issue, I don't see how there can be any disagreement that (a) our border is too open, or (b) that it should be secured. Returning to the topic at hand, I have no problem with a legal guest worker program in a country with virtually full employment. So long as we know who's coming and going, and they've provided with the kind of basic human/legal rights that any guest in our country is provided, and ensured of the same level of worker safety as any other worker (including workers compensation insurance for accidents), then, if an employer can still get such labor cheap, more power to 'em.

The greatest threat the world faces today is over-reaction to all the "great threats" that it faces.

I actually tend to agree with you about the threat of nukes. I also agree that we're under more "threat" (for lack of a less aggressive and demanding term) from social issues and how we deal with them. The ignorance of the population is a serious concern, and what's also a serious concern is how we deal with that ignorance. I often make comparisons with Rome myself, and I don't think there's "anything dangerous about your thinking", per se. My concern is more along the lines of the way our society often reacts to issues in general. Let me be specific. Rome's acceptance of Christianity wasn't a trigger for its downfall, as you suggest. It was a symptom of a larger problem and the result of the long decay of authority and lack of constitutional protections. I agree that the rejection of science in the middle ages was a negative factor, but it also produced the modern moral society which you benefit from every day. So drawing a comparison like that is counter-productive, because it ignores or downplays very obvious, well-accepted parameters that are not easily dismissed at all. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to support a position that, in a nutshell, Bush and his religious zealot cronies are trying to rule the world (or whatever). It's even worse -- your belief may even be true. But you haven't proferred anything (that can't be easily refuted) to support it. So my point, in the end, is not that your ideological position is invalid -- it's your opinion, and more power to you. It's that that kind of dismissive, reactionary viewpoint is as equally dangerous on the larger scale (i.e. when a lot of people agree with it in spite of whatever reality may be) is every bit as dangerous as the things you fear. Put another way, whether the mob is hell bent on burning christians, or hell bent on burning scientists, what really is the difference?

By the way.... How many web sites are there out there where ideological right wingers can gather and chat about what bugs them? How many web sites are there out there where ideological left wingers can gather and chat about what bugs them? Now.... How many web sites are there out there where moderates and centrists can gather and chat about what bugs them? What does THAT say about current threats to society?

Oh boy... I hate to belittle your point, because I think the danger you describe is a valid concern in theory, but I think we're in far more danger from people who THINK we're facing an immediate threat on that basis and intend to do something to stop that perceived threat (like wiping out all vestiges of religion from any aspect of our society, which I don't mean to imply is anything that you have suggested at all). Using buzzwords and catchphrases like "the stakes are higher" and "dark ages" and "civilization falls" just underscore a closed-minded attitude rather than an open, attentive and receptive mind. We hear this sort of thing a lot these days (coming equally from both ends of the spectrum). And I think it's every bit as dangerous as what you're talking about. Put another way, what I'm talking about could be described as "ideological reactionarianism". It's dangerous. It's popular. And it's growing more so every day. Evidence that this is the case may be found in the way that the above position can't be supported by anything more substantial than straw men and refutable, situational examples. The overall fabric of society is just fine. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be paying attention and ready for situations like the one you describe, but "the most dangerous threat to our existence? Whew, I don't see that at all.

I'm sure that's a factor, but IMO it has more to do with lack of attention being paid to politics, and developing one's general worldview based on consistent input over time from friends and family members, without further thoughtful analysis.

And yet most American voters consistently vote on a party line.