- This topic has 480 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 14, 2011 at 6:04 PM #720386August 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM #719179
CA renter
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Another great Steyn article and another reference to Lord of the Flies.
It’s easy to blame “Big Government” for the failure of society. I would agree, but probably for different reasons than you.
IMHO, Big Government has failed us because it has been bought off by the richest and most powerful among us. It has become the tool by which these few — but very powerful — people change laws and culture in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the general public.
What we need is a government that is far more transparent, and far more accountable to the *majority* of citizens of this country. The government (both parties) is unilaterally controlled by too few, and that is the root of our problems.
August 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM #719270Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Another great Steyn article and another reference to Lord of the Flies.
It’s easy to blame “Big Government” for the failure of society. I would agree, but probably for different reasons than you.
IMHO, Big Government has failed us because it has been bought off by the richest and most powerful among us. It has become the tool by which these few — but very powerful — people change laws and culture in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the general public.
What we need is a government that is far more transparent, and far more accountable to the *majority* of citizens of this country. The government (both parties) is unilaterally controlled by too few, and that is the root of our problems.
August 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM #719872Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Another great Steyn article and another reference to Lord of the Flies.
It’s easy to blame “Big Government” for the failure of society. I would agree, but probably for different reasons than you.
IMHO, Big Government has failed us because it has been bought off by the richest and most powerful among us. It has become the tool by which these few — but very powerful — people change laws and culture in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the general public.
What we need is a government that is far more transparent, and far more accountable to the *majority* of citizens of this country. The government (both parties) is unilaterally controlled by too few, and that is the root of our problems.
August 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM #720030Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Another great Steyn article and another reference to Lord of the Flies.
It’s easy to blame “Big Government” for the failure of society. I would agree, but probably for different reasons than you.
IMHO, Big Government has failed us because it has been bought off by the richest and most powerful among us. It has become the tool by which these few — but very powerful — people change laws and culture in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the general public.
What we need is a government that is far more transparent, and far more accountable to the *majority* of citizens of this country. The government (both parties) is unilaterally controlled by too few, and that is the root of our problems.
August 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM #720391Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Another great Steyn article and another reference to Lord of the Flies.
It’s easy to blame “Big Government” for the failure of society. I would agree, but probably for different reasons than you.
IMHO, Big Government has failed us because it has been bought off by the richest and most powerful among us. It has become the tool by which these few — but very powerful — people change laws and culture in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the general public.
What we need is a government that is far more transparent, and far more accountable to the *majority* of citizens of this country. The government (both parties) is unilaterally controlled by too few, and that is the root of our problems.
August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM #719530briansd1
Guest[quote=walterwhite]
also, the indians/gay/slave argument is more dramatic than other groups, since they had lots of room for improvement. Jewish lawyers, not so much over the last 50 years. though things are definitely better than the first half of the 20th c., when my grandfather graduated law school.[/quote]
It’s all relative. Happiness is how we feel in relation to others.
It’s interesting that Arraya mentions psychological health as a determinant of social health and sustainability.
I agree that, as a society, we push certain values that are detrimental to psychologically health.
More generally, I believe that the 20th century (the American Century) is a rather unusual period in human history.
During the American Century, the typical middle-class White person lead a very priviledged existence in relation to the rest of the world, and to other groups within the country.
The relative prosperity and social superiority have eroded so that’s why we have all that anxiety in “Middle America.” The Tea Party is a manifestation of White middle-class anxiety.
Unlike physical needs such as hunger, psychological stress can be eliminated by changing the way we think. Honestly, I believe that stress and anxiety are self-induced. It’s up to individuals to change how we absorbe the external stimuli (I know Arraya would say that’s exactly how our masters want us to think; but if we are going to have change, it’s up to us to have a revolution of the mind, because change won’t come from above).
I still believe that temeculaguy is right. As long as the human condition improves where there’s more freedom, more choices, less poverty for a greater portion of the world’s population, we are better off. Bring it on!
We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.
August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM #719622Guest[quote=walterwhite]
also, the indians/gay/slave argument is more dramatic than other groups, since they had lots of room for improvement. Jewish lawyers, not so much over the last 50 years. though things are definitely better than the first half of the 20th c., when my grandfather graduated law school.[/quote]
It’s all relative. Happiness is how we feel in relation to others.
It’s interesting that Arraya mentions psychological health as a determinant of social health and sustainability.
I agree that, as a society, we push certain values that are detrimental to psychologically health.
More generally, I believe that the 20th century (the American Century) is a rather unusual period in human history.
During the American Century, the typical middle-class White person lead a very priviledged existence in relation to the rest of the world, and to other groups within the country.
The relative prosperity and social superiority have eroded so that’s why we have all that anxiety in “Middle America.” The Tea Party is a manifestation of White middle-class anxiety.
Unlike physical needs such as hunger, psychological stress can be eliminated by changing the way we think. Honestly, I believe that stress and anxiety are self-induced. It’s up to individuals to change how we absorbe the external stimuli (I know Arraya would say that’s exactly how our masters want us to think; but if we are going to have change, it’s up to us to have a revolution of the mind, because change won’t come from above).
I still believe that temeculaguy is right. As long as the human condition improves where there’s more freedom, more choices, less poverty for a greater portion of the world’s population, we are better off. Bring it on!
We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.
August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM #720222Guest[quote=walterwhite]
also, the indians/gay/slave argument is more dramatic than other groups, since they had lots of room for improvement. Jewish lawyers, not so much over the last 50 years. though things are definitely better than the first half of the 20th c., when my grandfather graduated law school.[/quote]
It’s all relative. Happiness is how we feel in relation to others.
It’s interesting that Arraya mentions psychological health as a determinant of social health and sustainability.
I agree that, as a society, we push certain values that are detrimental to psychologically health.
More generally, I believe that the 20th century (the American Century) is a rather unusual period in human history.
During the American Century, the typical middle-class White person lead a very priviledged existence in relation to the rest of the world, and to other groups within the country.
The relative prosperity and social superiority have eroded so that’s why we have all that anxiety in “Middle America.” The Tea Party is a manifestation of White middle-class anxiety.
Unlike physical needs such as hunger, psychological stress can be eliminated by changing the way we think. Honestly, I believe that stress and anxiety are self-induced. It’s up to individuals to change how we absorbe the external stimuli (I know Arraya would say that’s exactly how our masters want us to think; but if we are going to have change, it’s up to us to have a revolution of the mind, because change won’t come from above).
I still believe that temeculaguy is right. As long as the human condition improves where there’s more freedom, more choices, less poverty for a greater portion of the world’s population, we are better off. Bring it on!
We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.
August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM #720379Guest[quote=walterwhite]
also, the indians/gay/slave argument is more dramatic than other groups, since they had lots of room for improvement. Jewish lawyers, not so much over the last 50 years. though things are definitely better than the first half of the 20th c., when my grandfather graduated law school.[/quote]
It’s all relative. Happiness is how we feel in relation to others.
It’s interesting that Arraya mentions psychological health as a determinant of social health and sustainability.
I agree that, as a society, we push certain values that are detrimental to psychologically health.
More generally, I believe that the 20th century (the American Century) is a rather unusual period in human history.
During the American Century, the typical middle-class White person lead a very priviledged existence in relation to the rest of the world, and to other groups within the country.
The relative prosperity and social superiority have eroded so that’s why we have all that anxiety in “Middle America.” The Tea Party is a manifestation of White middle-class anxiety.
Unlike physical needs such as hunger, psychological stress can be eliminated by changing the way we think. Honestly, I believe that stress and anxiety are self-induced. It’s up to individuals to change how we absorbe the external stimuli (I know Arraya would say that’s exactly how our masters want us to think; but if we are going to have change, it’s up to us to have a revolution of the mind, because change won’t come from above).
I still believe that temeculaguy is right. As long as the human condition improves where there’s more freedom, more choices, less poverty for a greater portion of the world’s population, we are better off. Bring it on!
We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.
August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM #720741Guest[quote=walterwhite]
also, the indians/gay/slave argument is more dramatic than other groups, since they had lots of room for improvement. Jewish lawyers, not so much over the last 50 years. though things are definitely better than the first half of the 20th c., when my grandfather graduated law school.[/quote]
It’s all relative. Happiness is how we feel in relation to others.
It’s interesting that Arraya mentions psychological health as a determinant of social health and sustainability.
I agree that, as a society, we push certain values that are detrimental to psychologically health.
More generally, I believe that the 20th century (the American Century) is a rather unusual period in human history.
During the American Century, the typical middle-class White person lead a very priviledged existence in relation to the rest of the world, and to other groups within the country.
The relative prosperity and social superiority have eroded so that’s why we have all that anxiety in “Middle America.” The Tea Party is a manifestation of White middle-class anxiety.
Unlike physical needs such as hunger, psychological stress can be eliminated by changing the way we think. Honestly, I believe that stress and anxiety are self-induced. It’s up to individuals to change how we absorbe the external stimuli (I know Arraya would say that’s exactly how our masters want us to think; but if we are going to have change, it’s up to us to have a revolution of the mind, because change won’t come from above).
I still believe that temeculaguy is right. As long as the human condition improves where there’s more freedom, more choices, less poverty for a greater portion of the world’s population, we are better off. Bring it on!
We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.
August 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM #719624Participant[quote=briansd1]We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.[/quote]
How would that improve aggregate social health?
You don’t seem to distinguish between the different types of immigrants. You say that by adding millions of poor, unskilled workers to our population that, magically, everything will turn out better. That hasn’t happened so far. “Cheap,” illegal labor (“cheap” only to the employers, not to the taxpayers…the profits have been privatized, and the losses/expenses socialized, yet again) has only served to drive down the wages of a huge portion of our population, while increasing the burden on taxpayer-funded education, infrastructure, healthcare, and legal/law enforcement systems in our country. It’s also increased housing costs for those very people whose wages have been decimated by this “cheap” labor. How can you say we’ve benefitted from this massive influx of low-skilled, illegal immigrants?
IMHO, immigration is fine, but we need to bring in people who will improve our economy, not burden it further. We can — and should — allow a certain number of refugees and people from poor countries to enter our country legally, but it needs to be limited and carefully monitored so that we don’t overwhelm our capacity to handle them.
In the meantime, the leaders of these poor countries need to get their sh~t together so that their people don’t feel desperate enough to risk their own lives just to escape. The level of corruption in these countries is off the charts.
August 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM #719717Participant[quote=briansd1]We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.[/quote]
How would that improve aggregate social health?
You don’t seem to distinguish between the different types of immigrants. You say that by adding millions of poor, unskilled workers to our population that, magically, everything will turn out better. That hasn’t happened so far. “Cheap,” illegal labor (“cheap” only to the employers, not to the taxpayers…the profits have been privatized, and the losses/expenses socialized, yet again) has only served to drive down the wages of a huge portion of our population, while increasing the burden on taxpayer-funded education, infrastructure, healthcare, and legal/law enforcement systems in our country. It’s also increased housing costs for those very people whose wages have been decimated by this “cheap” labor. How can you say we’ve benefitted from this massive influx of low-skilled, illegal immigrants?
IMHO, immigration is fine, but we need to bring in people who will improve our economy, not burden it further. We can — and should — allow a certain number of refugees and people from poor countries to enter our country legally, but it needs to be limited and carefully monitored so that we don’t overwhelm our capacity to handle them.
In the meantime, the leaders of these poor countries need to get their sh~t together so that their people don’t feel desperate enough to risk their own lives just to escape. The level of corruption in these countries is off the charts.
August 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM #720317Participant[quote=briansd1]We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.[/quote]
How would that improve aggregate social health?
You don’t seem to distinguish between the different types of immigrants. You say that by adding millions of poor, unskilled workers to our population that, magically, everything will turn out better. That hasn’t happened so far. “Cheap,” illegal labor (“cheap” only to the employers, not to the taxpayers…the profits have been privatized, and the losses/expenses socialized, yet again) has only served to drive down the wages of a huge portion of our population, while increasing the burden on taxpayer-funded education, infrastructure, healthcare, and legal/law enforcement systems in our country. It’s also increased housing costs for those very people whose wages have been decimated by this “cheap” labor. How can you say we’ve benefitted from this massive influx of low-skilled, illegal immigrants?
IMHO, immigration is fine, but we need to bring in people who will improve our economy, not burden it further. We can — and should — allow a certain number of refugees and people from poor countries to enter our country legally, but it needs to be limited and carefully monitored so that we don’t overwhelm our capacity to handle them.
In the meantime, the leaders of these poor countries need to get their sh~t together so that their people don’t feel desperate enough to risk their own lives just to escape. The level of corruption in these countries is off the charts.
August 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM #720473Participant[quote=briansd1]We have 14 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. We could greatly improve aggregate social health by legalizing all 14 million of them.[/quote]
How would that improve aggregate social health?
You don’t seem to distinguish between the different types of immigrants. You say that by adding millions of poor, unskilled workers to our population that, magically, everything will turn out better. That hasn’t happened so far. “Cheap,” illegal labor (“cheap” only to the employers, not to the taxpayers…the profits have been privatized, and the losses/expenses socialized, yet again) has only served to drive down the wages of a huge portion of our population, while increasing the burden on taxpayer-funded education, infrastructure, healthcare, and legal/law enforcement systems in our country. It’s also increased housing costs for those very people whose wages have been decimated by this “cheap” labor. How can you say we’ve benefitted from this massive influx of low-skilled, illegal immigrants?
IMHO, immigration is fine, but we need to bring in people who will improve our economy, not burden it further. We can — and should — allow a certain number of refugees and people from poor countries to enter our country legally, but it needs to be limited and carefully monitored so that we don’t overwhelm our capacity to handle them.
In the meantime, the leaders of these poor countries need to get their sh~t together so that their people don’t feel desperate enough to risk their own lives just to escape. The level of corruption in these countries is off the charts.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.