What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Willie71]

But in your mind there are only two options. I am either flirting with fascism myself, or too stupid to see my party is.If I were to think you are supporting an authoritarian communist agenda by supporting Hilary and "It takes a village", or too stupid to see the unworkable path you are going down, you would not have any idea what I was talking about.You don't think perhaps there is a workable average we can take?As in perhaps you are a reasonable, moral person with good judgement, and I am a reasonable, moral person with good judgment and we should both work to keep the place working in a way that suits us both?Was reading an article yesterday about the rise in hate crimes against Muslims lately and that there have been nearly 50 cases reported nationwide of vandalism, cursing and several examples of physical violence, and a few violent crimes.The picture accompanying the article was that of a white, unsigned building, with the Paris peace sign painted on it.Using iNow's statistical level of when we should be afraid, I don't think we have reached the threshold. We are still being rather unfascist.

Tar, it's not an opinion that the right wing is flirting with fascism. It's not hyperbolic rhetoric. It's based on historical examples of the exact processes both Germany and Italy have gone down, which are well documented. Fascism isn't just about xenophobia. It has the tying together of the big business interests with the government, minimizing or eliminating the people's power, and dismantling of the free press. Bernie has received 10 minutes of coverage from the three big networks this year, where trump has a couple hundred. Hillaries coverage far outweighs bernies as well. Reporters are being threatened to lose access to Hillary if they report on Bernie.

 

On the other hand, claiming Hillary or Bernie are communists is being hyperbolic, as neither is very far left of center. It's arguable that Hillary is center, or center right. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that policies endorsed by Hillary or Bernie get anywhere near communism, or even pure socialism. Elements of socialism similar to Canada and much of Europe, yes, but USSR/China? There is no "both sides are equally skewed" here.

 

Please do some investigations on the steps toward fascism. It's a pretty simple, fear based process. You will likely be shocked with the similarities between the current US political climate on the right, and what happened in Italy and Germany. Those of us familiar with this process are quite alarmed by this.

[tar]

iNow,

 

you said that ISIS had killed less people than die on the nation's highways and we were too big to be scared by such

Willie71,

 

My step mom hates Trump, and doesn't like Hilary much, and will probably vote for Bernie even though he is socialist.

 

I hate Trump, and might like Graham or Paul based on their debate performances the other night, but I think Hilary is one of those B words, and can not see her as my head of state, or my commander in chief. And Bernie is a socialist. I don't get to choose between Hilary and Bernie, anyway. I am registered Republican. If my choice is between Trump and Hilary in the election I will not know what to do. Maybe stay home.

 

Regards, TAR

iNow,

 

My point being, that if you don't want me to be scared about people chopping a guy from Indiana's head off, then I don't want you to be scared about a kid spray painting a Mosque.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I will however not bring your name into arguments any more if that is your wish. I will just refer to your ideas.

Edited December 18, 2015 by tar

[Phi for All]

On the other hand, claiming Hillary or Bernie are communists is being hyperbolic, as neither is very far left of center. It's arguable that Hillary is center, or center right. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that policies endorsed by Hillary or Bernie get anywhere near communism, or even pure socialism. Elements of socialism similar to Canada and much of Europe, yes, but USSR/China? There is no "both sides are equally skewed" here.

 

Last I heard, both H Clinton and Obama are slightly right of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Neither would dream of raising the top tax brackets to what Eisenhower or Sanders would, though. I don't think of Bernie or Dwight as Communist.

 

Hey, that's probably why the Republicans the megacorporations revere Reagan over Eisenhower. Ike has to be something bad/evil to tax the wealthy like that. Just look what that pinko did to this country!

[tar]

Besides, my state usually sends our electoral votes to the Democrat.

Phi,

 

I was down to the top of the Florida Keys a number of years ago, at a resort for an Eastern Region sales and service conference, for my former company.

 

Within the gated resort was a road to a causeway to an island with mansions on it. I am sure that the rich and powerful in this country inhabit such isolated islands. I walked across the causeway but did not feel comfortable walking on the island. I did not belong there. I had no reason, to be there, other than curiosity. I left.

 

But if some of the movers and shakers and important and powerful people in my country, did live there, then it was my country's leaders that lived there, and it was my island to respect, my power to maintain.

 

The next day there was a story of a boatload of Cubans racing a coast guard cutter to shore, on a dock across from the island I just mentioned. The people on shore, some of my workmates were cheering for the people on the boat to set foot on our shores before the coast guard could stop the boat and send it back. The Cubans made it. We were happy and proud.

 

Regards, TAR

doctors in Cuba I hear, make a hundred dollars a month

Phi,

 

One man, one vote.

 

Why not one man, one tithe?

 

If someone making 15 thousand gives 15 hundred to support the place and protect our shores, and someone making 15000000 gives a million and a half, then that would be fair, and the second guy would be giving the part of the first man, 1,000 times over.

 

But already the higher income people give at a graduated rate. And to support transfer payments to other men, already given tax credits to boost their ability to support their kids that they had of their own free will and that should be their responsibility to support.

 

At what point is it not a fair tithe given to the poor, and instead becomes a punitive portion, taken by a communist state?

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

Tar, your tax scheme, the flat tax has been shown to result in the accumulation of wealth at the top of the pyramid. Your opinion may be different, but that is what the facts tell us.

 

The countries with the most robust economies tend to have a marginal tax rate higher than 70%, even at 90%. Look at the most robust times in American history. 90% was the marginal tax rate. Why would you not want to return to this proven formula? The highest earners simply don't contribute their fair share to the economy, a separate issue from taxes. Trump claims he has 8 billion dollars personal wealth. He holds that money in his assets, not spending it on groceries, recreation, or a night out. People who earn less than $150k tend to spend a greater portion of their income back into the economy, rather than hoard it in offshore investments outside the local economy. Now, if it made more sense to hire a few additional amp loges, rather than pay that money in taxes as a business owner, the economy gets stimulated by employed people, who now have extra money to spend. Please do some investigating on economic history. These facts have been around for a long time, and they stand up to scrutiny.

 

Communism means no personal ownership of property, and everyone shares in everything. What happened in the USSR wasn't true communism, but fascism. Yes there is left wing and right wing fascism. In true communism, the leader of the country and a janitor would have the same standard of living. What politician is even close to advocating for such things?

iNow,you said that ISIS had killed less people than die on the nation's highways and we were too big to be scared by suchWillie71,My step mom hates Trump, and doesn't like Hilary much, and will probably vote for Bernie even though he is socialist.I hate Trump, and might like Graham or Paul based on their debate performances the other night, but I think Hilary is one of those B words, and can not see her as my head of state, or my commander in chief. And Bernie is a socialist. I don't get to choose between Hilary and Bernie, anyway. I am registered Republican. If my choice is between Trump and Hilary in the election I will not know what to do. Maybe stay home.Regards, TARiNow,My point being, that if you don't want me to be scared about people chopping a guy from Indiana's head off, then I don't want you to be scared about a kid spray painting a Mosque.Regards, TARI will however not bring your name into arguments any more if that is your wish. I will just refer to your ideas.

You completely miss the power dynamics. There are an estimated 2 million people in the US who believe there should be a Christian theocracy. There are 100 million + republicans, and almost 40% of the like Trump's stance on Muslims. If you cannot see how this is different than a handful of radicalized Islamists committing acts of terror, we can't help you. The right wing Christian terrorists outnumber Islamists in the US. Both are really a minimal threat, but it's not just some spray paint we are talking about here. People are being assaulted. Constitutional rights are being violated, and Trump/Cruz/Carson are proposing religious tests. That is state level fascism/terrorism.

[neutrinosalad]

You completely miss the power dynamics. There are an estimated 2 million people in the US who believe there should be a Christian theocracy. There are 100 million + republicans, and almost 40% of the like Trump's stance on Muslims. If you cannot see how this is different than a handful of radicalized Islamists committing acts of terror, we can't help you. The right wing Christian terrorists outnumber Islamists in the US. Both are really a minimal threat, but it's not just some spray paint we are talking about here. People are being assaulted. Constitutional rights are being violated, and Trump/Cruz/Carson are proposing religious tests. That is state level fascism/terrorism.

 

In what way is wanting controlled immigration with certain checks to ensure that ISIS supporters are not brought in with the Syrian refugee population the same as killing large amounts of innocent civilians with assault rifles due to being radicalized by ISIS ideals?

 

You called them Christian terrorists, so I would like an explanation on how those two behaviors equivalent.

[Ten oz]

 

In what way is wanting controlled immigration with certain checks to ensure that ISIS supporters are not brought in with the Syrian refugee population the same as killing large amounts of innocent civilians with assault rifles due to being radicalized by ISIS ideals?

 

You called them Christian terrorists, so I would like an explanation on how those two behaviors equivalent.

Farook and Marquez had planned attacks in 2011 and 2012 but didn't go through with them. They had been interested in killing people before ISIS replace Al Quada as America's primary terrorist rival. I know it makes ISIS seem like a way more dangerous to say that they radicalized U.S. Citizens but perhaps ISIS is just the scape goat here. These guys were just looking for a reason. Not unlike so many of the other mass shooters we have seen.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

[Willie71]

In what way is wanting controlled immigration with certain checks to ensure that ISIS supporters are not brought in with the Syrian refugee population the same as killing large amounts of innocent civilians with assault rifles due to being radicalized by ISIS ideals?

 

You called them Christian terrorists, so I would like an explanation on how those two behaviors equivalent.

Shooting up a black church to start a race war, or shooting up a planned parenthood clinic are acts of Christian terrorism. This last planned parenthood shooter might not be a Christian terrorist, but many before him were.

 

Controlling the border =/= deporting millions of people, revoking 14th amendment citizenship, refusing natural citizens from returning abroad because of a religious test. Propose non hyperbolic policies that might actually work, and let's have a discussion.

 

To date there have been ZERO terrorists from Syria. One unconfirmed in Paris. Approximately two million refugees so far. It's statistically insignificant. Way more people die crossing the street or cleaning their gun. The refugees are running from Isis. Isis could much easier get naturalized citizens from European countries to fly legally to the US, rather than wait the 2+ years it currently takes. Nonsense fear mongering.

 

 

 

Tar, side note on Cuba. I have vacationed there several times. Some of the friendliest people I have met. While the monthly wage might be low by our standards, you have to take into account the realities of communism. The basic standards of living are covered by the state. There is a basic home, food, work clothing, and medical coverage that do not come out of your pocket. Utilities are $4.00/month. I pay $350.00 monthly for utilities.

 

The people are poor, have little extra, but no one goes without a home, basic needs, and education is free. Cuba's largest economic contributor is professional consultation worldwide. Anyone has the opportunity to be a doctor. I never had that chance because of where I was born.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Willie71

[neutrinosalad]

Farook and Marquez had planned attacks in 2011 and 2012 but didn't go through with them. They had been interested in killing people before ISIS replace Al Quada as America's primary terrorist rival. I know it makes ISIS seem like a way more dangerous to say that they radicalized U.S. Citizens but perhaps ISIS is just the scape goat here. These guys were just looking for a reason. Not unlike so many of the other mass shooters we have seen.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

 

Ok, here is a statement from the video in the link you posted: "The FBI says her thoughts about jihad were already contained within private messages she shared with Farook." (said at 1:20)

 

Let's move beyond ISIS here, how would you interpret that statement?

 

Shooting up a black church to start a race war, or shooting up a planned parenthood clinic are acts of Christian terrorism. This last planned parenthood shooter might not be a Christian terrorist, but many before him were.

 

Controlling the border =/= deporting millions of people, revoking 14th amendment citizenship, refusing natural citizens from returning abroad because of a religious test. Propose non hyperbolic policies that might actually work, and let's have a discussion.

 

To date there have been ZERO terrorists from Syria. One unconfirmed in Paris. Approximately two million refugees so far. It's statistically insignificant. Way more people die crossing the street or cleaning their gun. The refugees are running from Isis. Isis could much easier get naturalized citizens from European countries to fly legally to the US, rather than wait the 2+ years it currently takes. Nonsense fear mongering.

 

I get the feeling that your use of the word "Christian terrorism" is a contortion of those acts in order to conflate internal conflicts in the US with external conflicts, both of which have different implications to the US population at large.

 

The 14th amendment was created in order to turn the ex-slave population into citizens of the US, post civil war. The flaw in the language was abused by our bordering Mexican citizenry for monetary gains. I am sure that if the senate and house knew at the time they were drafting the 14th amendment that it would be abused so heavily by a population of people immigrating here illegally 120-130 years down the road, they would have worded it differently.

 

Okay, I will agree, but how do you feel about Saudi Arabia financing the creation of Wahhabi mosques around the world. Wahhabi mosques are known to be hotbeds for the spread of radical ideas among the Muslim population.

 

Here is an article: http://www.mintpressnews.com/time-of-looking-away-over-germany-warns-saudi-arabia-to-stop-funding-radical-islamists/211859/

[tar]

Willie71,

 

I have spoken to a number of wealthy people, who employ other people. That helps the economy, to hire people and pay wages and salary. And what is most under appreciated are wealthy people who own bonds. That money, the wealth they have created, is loaned back out to people with a good business plan, that hire people to build and operate a concern. And then there are the owners of businesses who put their money at risk.

 

The accumulation of wealth, the people that put money in the bank for a rainy day, or that save up for a big purchase or a vacation provides money for the banks to lend out and allow people to live a good life and get the house and car and such that they want now.

 

I was somewhat annoyed the other day, looking at perhaps retiring, that the amount I would get monthly was 75 percent of what I would get at full retirement age, if I continued to make what I was making when I stopped working, and every year I would make a small amount would lower the average of the last 35 of work that would be used to calculate the amount I would get, and I could work after retiring, but could only make 15 thousand before I would not be given my monthly amount, at the rate of 1 dollar less for every 2 dollars I made over the 15K. And somehow it made sense that that non payment would be accomplished by not paying me at the beginning of the calendar year in question? That some law makers can decide on my behalf that I don't need the money, is silly. I paid my social security tax, I should simply get what I signed up to get. I hate this arbitrary choosing of winners and losers and changing the rules in the middle of the game.

 

Regards, TAR

And the money I have in my 401K is not even mine yet. When I take it out I pay the taxes that I didn't pay when I put it in. Hopefully at a lower rate, but the scale keeps changing and my wife is still working, so to take it out to pay bills, I have to just get a percentage of it. If I would take it all at once, and get 50 percent of it taken in taxes, that would be downright robbery.

My point is that my money should be my money, not your money to give me if I need it in your estimation.

That is, since we don't live in a communist country...yet.

[Willie71]

Capayan, part of what leaves me skeptic all of the anti Muslim propaganda, beyond the face value absurdity, is the fact that your government ignores the human rights violations and sponsoring of terrorism engaged by your ally, Saudi Arabia.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Willie71

[neutrinosalad]

Capayan, part of what leaves me skeptic all of the anti Muslim propaganda, beyond the face value absurdity, is the fact that your government ignores the human rights violations and sponsoring of terrorism engaged by your ally, Saudi Arabia.

 

It is the Bush dynasty that drives this alliance. I don't like our alliance with Saudi Arabia either.

 

Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bush,_House_of_Saud

and this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-tangled-web-of-us-saudi-ties/

 

President Bush's decisions regarding going into the Iraq war and many of the absurd decisions that the US makes in the Middle East all start to make sense when you realize that there is this underlying relationship.

 

It is difficult to underestimate the amount of overall power and influence the Bush dynasty and their circle have over this country.

 

Edit: I also just want to say that I agree with a lot of your guys ideas. I think I am just frustrated with an overall sense of powerlessness when it comes to the political realm. It is why I personally tend to go through long periods of time where I avoid thinking about politics. The main reasons why my interest was renewed recently was due to a couple of international events that caught my eye.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Capayan

[MigL]

Maybe Willie could explain to the rest of us why, if Cubans are so friendly, happy and content with their lot in life, so many of them are willing to set sail on an inner tube across 50 mi of shark infested waters to get to Florida ?

( whatever America's problems, Cuba's are much more serious )

Edited December 19, 2015 by MigL

[Willie71]

It is the Bush dynasty that drives this alliance. I don't like our alliance with Saudi Arabia either.

 

Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bush,_House_of_Saud

and this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-tangled-web-of-us-saudi-ties/

 

President Bush's decisions regarding going into the Iraq war and many of the absurd decisions that the US makes in the Middle East all start to make sense when you realize that there is this underlying relationship.

 

It is difficult to underestimate the amount of overall power and influence the Bush dynasty and their circle have over this country.

 

Edit: I also just want to say that I agree with a lot of your guys ideas. I think I am just frustrated with an overall sense of powerlessness when it comes to the political realm. It is why I personally tend to go through long periods of time where I avoid thinking about politics. The main reasons why my interest was renewed recently was due to a couple of international events that caught my eye.

It goes back before Bush. America has traded military support for cheap oil for decades. The Embargo is the early 70's showed how dependent the US was on this alliance. The politics in the region are massively complex and nuanced, but the constant has been oil/military support. As oil became a major commodity, moving from the gold standard to the petrodollar shifted the centres of power throughout the world, and helped the Americans rise to the superpower they have been since the end of WWII.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_States_relations

Maybe Willie could explain to the rest of us why, if Cubans are so friendly, happy and content with their lot in life, so many of them are willing to set sail on an inner tube across 50 mi of shark infested waters to get to Florida ?

( whatever America's problems, Cuba's are much more serious )

I guess nobody has ever moved from the US to live somewhere else?

 

More seriously, some people are more motivated by dreams of wealth than other people. Oppression occurs in every society too. It would make sense that those two groups would try to leave. I've been to Cuba three times, and have been impressed with the more laid back lifestyle, lower stress, higher contentment, and strong relationships.

[neutrinosalad]

It goes back before Bush. America has traded military support for cheap oil for decades. The Embargo is the early 70's showed how dependent the US was on this alliance. The politics in the region are massively complex and nuanced, but the constant has been oil/military support. As oil became a major commodity, moving from the gold standard to the petrodollar shifted the centres of power throughout the world, and helped the Americans rise to the superpower they have been since the end of WWII.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_States_relations

 

This is interesting. I think the relationship between US and Saudi Arabia may have been economically beneficial at first, but now I am doubting the benefits that the US is gaining out of the relationship. Honestly, European involvement in the region due to a desire for oil to drive economic growth in the homeland has driven a lot of strife in that region.

 

One of biggest things that France and British leadership did was cut up the Ottoman Empire into random pieces post WWI without accounting for the preexisting groups of people and how they were managed within the Ottoman Empire. The strife that is happening there right now has probably been building up to this for a century now.

 

 

 

I guess nobody has ever moved from the US to live somewhere else?

 

More seriously, some people are more motivated by dreams of wealth than other people. Oppression occurs in every society too. It would make sense that those two groups would try to leave. I've been to Cuba three times, and have been impressed with the more laid back lifestyle, lower stress, higher contentment, and strong relationships.

 

I personally feel that those motivated people are important to the long term economic prosperity of a country as a whole. My grandfather immigrated here from Argentina following an "economic restructuring" following decisions that the Perone's made. A variety of poor economic and international decisions led to the overall brain drain of Argentina and this has had some pretty severe repercussions on the country.

 

I watched a documentary on Che Guevara and it was interesting to learn how post overthrow of the Cuban government, Fidel Castro performed his own "economic restructuring" that led to the mass exodus of the aristocracy to Florida. I think it will be interesting to see how Cuba fares economically after being reintroduced to the international markets without the leadership that lived there pre-Fidel days.

[Ten oz]

Ok, here is a statement from the video in the link you posted: "The FBI says her thoughts about jihad were already contained within private messages she shared with Farook." (said at 1:20)

 

Let's move beyond ISIS here, how would you interpret that statement?

 

 

Farook and Marquez were looking to kill people before Syed met his wife. This is not a case of a couple of otherwise happy and normal citizens being radicalized. They had a desire to kill that brewed for several years. They sought out others like themselves. Whether or not ISIS exists people like Farook and Marquez would still have been dangerous. They fell into radical Islam's lap.

 

We understand the crazy gunman better when they are white Christians. No one is claiming Robert Lewis Dear (planned parenthood shooter) was anything but a crazy man. Sure there is a ton of political and religious rhetoric swirling around the abortion debate, Presidential candidates exploiting fake videos and using incendiary language, yet no one blames anyone other than the shooter. Extra security hasn't been provided to Planned Parenthood or any national movement of sympathy. Similarily when Dylan Roof attacked the church in Charleston he was treated as a lone gunman. It led to a national debate over the confederate flag but little else. Dylan Roof was just a lone crazy person. Christian shooters equal crazy person while Muslims equal radicalized terrorists. One is dismissive and paints the picture of a contained incident while to other presents a threat far greater than the incident itself.

 

I see no reason to conpartimentalize it all. Let's be honest here when shooting in the U.S. involves black or latino people it is general viewed as possibly gang related or drug related and treated as a crime, when the shooter is white the rhetoric shifts to mental health. And when the shooter is Muslim it is viewed as terrorism. The labels: black/Latino = thugs, whites = crazy, Muslims = radicalized terrorists.

Maybe Willie could explain to the rest of us why, if Cubans are so friendly, happy and content with their lot in life, so many of them are willing to set sail on an inner tube across 50 mi of shark infested waters to get to Florida ?

( whatever America's problems, Cuba's are much more serious )

Many Canadians move to the U.S. too but that hardly means Canada is a terrible place. Cuban's have a unique situation; no living in the shadows for them. Cubans touch land and they get rights. There is a whole network in place to assist them. So there is some incentives in places for Cubans that are not in place for other immigrants. Leaving Cuban for some is about expanding opportunities more so than it is a rejection of Cuba itself.

Millions from Pakistan, India, and Indonesia leave those countries and basically enter into servitude in Qatar, Saudi Arbia, UAE, Oman, and etc. Sometimes people leave a country because they are seeking a better life. Other times they just want money and are willing to sacrifice their life to get it. I don't think you can use the fact that some choose to leave a country as an accurate reflection of the quality of life in the country.

[MigL]

I don't see why not.

If your own country doesn't provide you the opportunity to better yourself ( even if it is simply earning more money ), then there is a problem.

And I speak as an immigrant to Canada, from Italy, in the late 60s.

 

That's not to say that the US provides opportunities for everyone ( that is a problem ), so some do leave.

But none so desperate as to do so on an inner tube.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I was depressed last night, looking at the amount of metropolitan areas in the world with over 20 million inhabitants.

 

Yesterday I drove to our small local airport on volunteer business and noted that I only saw 4 people outside of vehicles and passed less than a dozen moving vehicles in a 5 or 10 mile trip.

 

Quality of life, the amount of space I have to myself and people I know or associate with, is important to a person like myself with a touch of claustrophobia.

 

When I was in Japan, I took a train from Tokyo to Yokohama and never left inhabited area, with 4 story apartment buildings and the like on either side of the tracks. Solid city, like the area near NYC in New Jersey, inside interstate 287 (minus the meadowlands and a few parks.)

 

I live in an area protected by the NJ Highlands act. We voted for such protection of wild land and watershed, and wetlands. To improve our collective quality of life. I pay high taxes, cannot build except on existing footprints and such, so that others in my state have clean water, and a place to come to hike and boat and sightsee.

 

In my youth the population of the Earth was 3 billion and the U.S. was like 180 million. We were at the time very concerned about population growth, growing at logarithmic rates and one of our social responsibilities was to have only two children. Replacement numbers. I only had two. Others have big families. Many children, sometimes the parents support the kids, and the family does well. Like the Catholic family I mentioned earlier. Other places the population grows quite outside my control and the people may or may not be concerned with social responsibility and with the responsibility of birthing only such offspring as you can support.

 

I worked for a company that had a factory in China. My uncle visited China and told me of the factory complex that had a high rise apartment building where the workers lived, and a company store and such where the workers never left the complex. Reminded me of the iron works museum here in my town. We don't do it exactly that way, anymore, here in my town. People have their own place, where they can sit out on the patio and see trees and birds, and a handful of other houses.

 

I remember one day when I was thinking about the factory in China, and looking out into my peaceful back yard, planted in a beautiful manner by my wife, how much I like living the way I live as opposed to living the way the employees of the same company I worked for, lived in China.

 

You can have Cuba. I will take the U.S.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

I don't see why not.

If your own country doesn't provide you the opportunity to better yourself ( even if it is simply earning more money ), then there is a problem.

And I speak as an immigrant to Canada, from Italy, in the late 60s.

 

That's not to say that the US provides opportunities for everyone ( that is a problem ), so some do leave.

But none so desperate as to do so on an inner tube.

Cuba is a small island country; only 11 million people. In terms of opportunity there will always be more in a country that is geographically larger like the United States. It doesn't matter what the gov't of Cuba does. It is an island with limited space and resources. Boil down all the rhetoric and that is why England (an island) expanded and created settlements elsewhere. Access to more resources, more land, different climates, different agriculture, and etc. Today the United States is one of the most resource rich and geographically diverse countries on earth. We have beautiful beaches, great mountains to hike or ski, volcanos, large forests, huge deserts, oil, coal, iron, copper, gold, silvers, and etc, etc, etc, etc. If you can think of it we got it!!!That is where our opportunities comes from. It doesn't come from politicians and cultural difference that make us superior to the rest of the world. Location, location, location, we have a great chunk of land here.

You can have Cuba. I will take the U.S.Regards, TAR

No where in any thread on this site have I ever once indicated that I would rather live in Cuba. I can love the United States while at the same time acknowledge that other people may love their countries too. And just because a person chooses to leave a person, place, or situation that doesn't make those things horrible. I am sure many of us in here have left perfectly good jobs just because our personal interests laid elsewhere or broke off a romantic relationship with an incredible person because it just wasn't right for us. That's life; bleep happens. A person can be born in Cuba, love Cuba, then move to the USA, and proceed to love both USA & Cuba. There is not an ethical dilemma to that.

[neutrinosalad]

Farook and Marquez were looking to kill people before Syed met his wife. This is not a case of a couple of otherwise happy and normal citizens being radicalized. They had a desire to kill that brewed for several years. They sought out others like themselves. Whether or not ISIS exists people like Farook and Marquez would still have been dangerous. They fell into radical Islam's lap.

 

I see no reason to conpartimentalize it all. Let's be honest here when shooting in the U.S. involves black or latino people it is general viewed as possibly gang related or drug related and treated as a crime, when the shooter is white the rhetoric shifts to mental health. And when the shooter is Muslim it is viewed as terrorism. The labels: black/Latino = thugs, whites = crazy, Muslims = radicalized terrorists.

 

I reviewed your initial article some more and I will agree that there is more meat to the shooting than what I had initially assumed. Planning attacks in 2010 and 2012 along with Marquez being the initial partner, sheds the attack in a different light.

 

The compartmentalization of the same behavior across different groups of people is something that adds a level of nuance to the topic that should not be ignored. Thugs vs mental health problems vs radicalized terrorists suggests the affects of group dynamics in how the same behavior can be seen in different lights.

 

Why do they use different words? The media in the US is run by Western Europeans and that has a significant affect on how the news is presented. Sometimes I watch Al Jazeera news, which is run out of Qatar in order to see the other line of thinking. The rhetoric has a significant shift and it is interesting to see.

 

I still believe that tribalism and the affects of evolutionary adaptations to our environment which affect the chemistry of our minds has a significant affect on the behavior of people and their perception of things in large scale politics. It would be a mistake to forgot our biological history. While things like religiosity and tribalism can be reduced in people's behavior through education and an excess of wealth that does not completely stop the emotional functions of our own minds. This is why government and the delegating body needs to account for this maladapted trait that works well in small groups, but inhibits the healthy functioning of a highly urbanized heterogenous society.

 

I am running out of steam at this point, so I am just offering this up as food for thought.

[Ten oz]

I still believe that tribalism and the affects of evolutionary adaptations to our environment which affect the chemistry of our minds has a significant affect on the behavior of people and their perception of things in large scale politics. It would be a mistake to forgot our biological history. While things like religiosity and tribalism can be reduced in people's behavior through education and an excess of wealth that does not completely stop the emotional functions of our own minds. This is why government and the delegating body needs to account for this maladapted trait that works well in small groups, but inhibits the healthy functioning of a highly urbanized heterogenous society.

 

I am running out of steam at this point, so I am just offering this up as food for thought.

 

I appriciate that you reviewed pervious posts and linked information. It shows a level of thoughtfulness that I think we all hope fellow thread members put into their posts.

 

Can you elaborate on the comment quoted above. I am not sure where you are going referencing evolutionary adaptations to the environment? I am left with an impression but I don't want to just assume.

[Willie71]

I reviewed your initial article some more and I will agree that there is more meat to the shooting than what I had initially assumed. Planning attacks in 2010 and 2012 along with Marquez being the initial partner, sheds the attack in a different light.

 

The compartmentalization of the same behavior across different groups of people is something that adds a level of nuance to the topic that should not be ignored. Thugs vs mental health problems vs radicalized terrorists suggests the affects of group dynamics in how the same behavior can be seen in different lights.

 

Why do they use different words? The media in the US is run by Western Europeans and that has a significant affect on how the news is presented. Sometimes I watch Al Jazeera news, which is run out of Qatar in order to see the other line of thinking. The rhetoric has a significant shift and it is interesting to see.

 

I still believe that tribalism and the affects of evolutionary adaptations to our environment which affect the chemistry of our minds has a significant affect on the behavior of people and their perception of things in large scale politics. It would be a mistake to forgot our biological history. While things like religiosity and tribalism can be reduced in people's behavior through education and an excess of wealth that does not completely stop the emotional functions of our own minds. This is why government and the delegating body needs to account for this maladapted trait that works well in small groups, but inhibits the healthy functioning of a highly urbanized heterogenous society.

 

I am running out of steam at this point, so I am just offering this up as food for thought.

 

Xenophobia is inherently biological. We can strive to overcome it. Great video on this, but it's over two hours long.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YZLlvc9rviM

[neutrinosalad]

I appriciate that you reviewed pervious posts and linked information. It shows a level of thoughtfulness that I think we all hope fellow thread members put into their posts.

 

Can you elaborate on the comment quoted above. I am not sure where you are going referencing evolutionary adaptations to the environment? I am left with an impression but I don't want to just assume.

 

If you think about it, agriculture started 11,500 years ago (found this through wiki) in the fertile crescent. Agriculture was also started in the America's separately, but I would like to focus on the one out of the fertile crescent for the sake of keeping it simple.

 

Before 11,500 years ago our evolutionary adaptations were driven purely by changes in the environment. People worked in small groups of hunter gatherers. We can even call these small groups "tribes". Once agriculture came along, it gave humanity the ability to change their environment to fit their own needs and that is where the problem starts. Over these 11,500 years, agriculture has allowed the population to expand until people were able to move from tribes of 80-150 people to societies of hundreds of thousands even millions. With population expansion in parallel with technological progress we have changed the environment that we live in so rapidly that our biological adaptations no longer align with the environment. This is especially true in the societies created following the industrial revolution.

 

When you look at it, the technology has changed, the demographics have changed, but our own biology is largely the same.

 

A key piece of this biology is our brains. Our brains have these complex stress-response systems built inside of them. When we identify an outside stressor (something potentially harmful or dangerous) our brain responds by releasing chemicals. The release of chemicals drives our behavior. Now if you accept that our biology is almost the entirely the same as it was 11,500 years ago, you would see that we have a serious problem on our hands.

 

Our brains are constantly identifying stressors and releasing chemicals in response to them based on a hunter gatherer, tribalistic model that is now obsolete. Part of this response system is identifying people who are in and out of the group (tribe). This is where I believe a lot of conflict is coming from.

 

We can talk about this more, but I am not an expert on the subject nor am I a neuroscientist so I can only say so much on the topic and I do not make any guarantees on how accurate or correct I will be.

 

Xenophobia is inherently biological. We can strive to overcome it. Great video on this, but it's over two hours long.

 

 

I was watching that video for a bit yesterday, probably going to finish it up today. Thank you for linking it.

 

Edit: Just wanted to add that I used "in and out groups" in my response thanks to your video Willie. Also, I wanted to note that I am specifically using tribalism over racism due to the fact that tribalism has a lower level of emotional connotation to it. I believe that this reduced level of emotional connotation allows us to talk more rationally about the subject.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Capayan

[Ten oz]

 

If you think about it, agriculture started 11,500 years ago (found this through wiki) in the fertile crescent. Agriculture was also started in the America's separately, but I would like to focus on the one out of the fertile crescent for the sake of keeping it simple.

 

Before 11,500 years ago our evolutionary adaptations were driven purely by changes in the environment. People worked in small groups of hunter gatherers. We can even call these small groups "tribes". Once agriculture came along, it gave humanity the ability to change their environment to fit their own needs and that is where the problem starts. Over these 11,500 years, agriculture has allowed the population to expand until people were able to move from tribes of 80-150 people to societies of hundreds of thousands even millions. With population expansion in parallel with technological progress we have changed the environment that we live in so rapidly that our biological adaptations no longer align with the environment. This is especially true in the societies created following the industrial revolution.

 

When you look at it, the technology has changed, the demographics have changed, but our own biology is largely the same.

 

A key piece of this biology is our brains. Our brains have these complex stress-response systems built inside of them. When we identify an outside stressor (something potentially harmful or dangerous) our brain responds by releasing chemicals. The release of chemicals drives our behavior. Now if you accept that our biology is almost the entirely the same as it was 11,500 years ago, you would see that we have a serious problem on our hands.

 

Our brains are constantly identifying stressors and releasing chemicals in response to them based on a hunter gatherer, tribalistic model that is now obsolete. Part of this response system is identifying people who are in and out of the group (tribe). This is where I believe a lot of conflict is coming from.

 

We can talk about this more, but I am not an expert on the subject nor am I a neuroscientist so I can only say so much on the topic and I do not make any guarantees on how accurate or correct I will be.

 

I think that there is an argument to be made that hunter gatherers changed their enviroment as well. In context of your post it is only a petty argument though. I broadly agree with what you posted. I am not sure how that ties into ISIS and immigration however; outside of expalining our anxiety?

[neutrinosalad]

I think that there is an argument to be made that hunter gatherers changed their enviroment as well. In context of your post it is only a petty argument though. I broadly agree with what you posted. I am not sure how that ties into ISIS and immigration however; outside of expalining our anxiety?

 

I would agree that in the hunter gatherer stage, we changed our environment. But, you can make the argument that it was not nearly to the extant that we have now. At about 10,000 BC, the world population was estimated to be between 1-10 million. Now it is over 7 billion. The extent to which the environment could be altered with a population of ~5 million vs ~7 billion is on a vastly different scale.

 

I would argue that it is not a petty argument, but an incomplete argument. I have no idea how far neuroscience has gone in charting out the complex chemical response system in our brains in relation to environmental stressors. I only knew of this by reading some of the book: Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers. I only got through part of it and from what I read, the science had only progressed to the point to recognize that our brains were releasing trace amounts of hormones over microscopic distances that enabled neurons to fire off electrically. The experts here can probably offer up a more nuanced discussion on this than I could any day of the week.

 

As a forward, I would like to ignore ISIS in this case due to the extreme levels of complexity surrounding that group and focus on immigration.

 

What I am trying to say is that our brains are built for us to behave tribalistically, since that is how humanity has been observed to behave pre-agriculture. By tribalistically, I mean people operate through self-selected groups.

 

In the context of immigration, the native group tends to see the immigrants as an external group entering their territory. From what I have observed, if the immigration happens at too high of a rate, this can lead to backlash from the native group. I believe this is due to tribalistic drives, since the native group sees the immigrants as a threat to their territory and resources. This is how preexisting evolutionary adaptations can inhibit society from functioning peacefully and smoothly.

 

Modern Europe is a great example of this. France for example has accepted a rapidly growing number of migrants and now there is a growing backlash from the native population thrusting a nationalistic party to the top of the polls out of the desire of the native population to exclude or remove the migrant population.

 

The same could be observed in the United States. We brought in an African population for the purpose of cheap labor, then enacted controls on the population to subdue their political presence within the country. Once they were free citizens, there was a huge backlash in the South due to the new threat that the African population presented to the social hierarchy and access to resources. Not only were there abuses towards the African community, they actually had to fight for their rights to have access to the same government and societal benefits as the Europeans, which ultimately culminated in the Civil Rights Movement.

 

The Mexican population that immigrated here also were treated as a lower caste of citizens relative to the European population and they too had to fight for their rights through the Chicano Movement in California.

 

These are all due to the effects of tribalism from what I have observed.

 

The effects can still be observed within modern America. Europeans still have the easiest time getting a loan from a European run bank, especially relative to African-Americans. Here is an article on it: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/white_people_are_far_more_likely_to_get_a_loan_and_own_a_home_in_los_angeles.php. The graph in the middle with the red bar highlighting the key statistic is the most important part of that article.

 

The United States is a great example of how to handle tribalism though. There seems to be an underlying tenet of society where we exalt overarching societal values and behaviors over our own ethnic and racial backgrounds. This belief system seems to be the best way so far of getting large scale heterogenous society to work smoothly in the face of now obsolete biological adaptations.