"I have no room in my heart for Jewish suffering - Why do you pester me with Jewish troubles?" - Rosa Luxemberg. See also Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question.
Its not very hard to find people who say that Israel shoul go away. In large swathes of the world, its actual a popular political position. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, and numerous other organizations are open in saying that the only just solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is the destruction of Israel or the Zionist entity to them.
Their allies in the West tend to over look this or actively endorse this and imagine a future where Israel disappears and is replaced by a "secular, democratic Palestine", which is something that the Palestinians don't even want.
Yes, this. The only reason we avoided Holocaust II right after Holocaust I was because Stalin died just before he could carry out his plan to send all the Jews to labor camps in Siberia. Without Israel, the viciously anti-Semitic governments of Eastern Europe would simply have hundreds of thousands more Jews to persecute.
What would the fate of the Middle Eastern Jews be without Israel? Nothig good. At best they would be treated with benign neglect and simply allowed to be while not really being viewed as part of the nation. At worse, they would be actively persecuted. Many of them would have to face the same damned if you do, damned if you don't choices that other minorities in the Middle East had. Do they support the secular dictator for paper equality and marginal protection or face the reality of majority rule and hope for the best? Either choice isn't good.
Yeah, maybe if the Anti-Zionists would stop resorting to obviously anti-Semtic troops when criticizing Israel and think of why possibly we Jews might want our own state and ponder what would be our fate without Israel than we can move forward. Maybe if they stopped presenting Israel as the source of all evil and trouble in the Middle East because its rapidly clear to anybody capable of thought that its not. Maybe if they look slightly more closely at their allies and all the madness and hatred spewed against the Jews in the Muslim world. Maybe if the anti-Zionists can approach this with even a modicum of seriousness.
At best, the anti-Zionists express nothing but antipathy towards us Jews. They are the type of people of reacted to the progroms that occured after the Holocaust with the reply, "progroms, there have always been progroms" before going back to sleep. They say they feel compassion towards all the oppressed but when we need help, we are ignored while demanding our help because we are persecuted. At worse, the anti-Zionists are painfully obvious Jew-haters that are struggling to find away to express their perverted fantasies and bigotry without looking bad.
This. A lot of people only give things a surface reading rather than a deep reading. Its why people can read Wurthering Heights and think Healthcliff is dreamy rather than see the darker undertones. The general assumption should be that many people are going to miss any subtext and focus on the text-text.
This. A lot of people only give things a surface reading rather than a deep reading. Its why people can read Wurthering Heights and think Healthcliff is dreamy rather than see the darker undertones. The general assumption should be that many people are going to miss any subtext and focus on the text-text.
A lot of conservative Constitutional views seem to stem from wanting the American Constitution to read like the Confederate one. Let that speak for itself.
In New York, the bulk of restaurant workers in certain types of restaurant establishments and many construction workers are immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Usually they work in the non-chain, non-franchize but not necessarily high class restaurants. Chinese immigrants tend to go into restaurant work, construction, or providing services to other Chinese immigrants. Hispanics tend towards the same plus gardening work and domestic service, which Chinese immigrants tend to avoid unless their employer is also Chinese.
I'm an immigration lawyer. Being an illegal immigrant is considered a civil rather than criminal violation because treating illegal immigrants as criminals would tax the resources of the Federal Government. In removal proceedings, immigrants may get a lawyer to represent them but the Federal Government doesn't need to provide one. If being an illegal immigrant was a federal crime than the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would kick in. Since undocumented aliens are only considered civil violators, they don't have to be locked up during the course of their proceedings which saves the federal government a lot of money to since they don't have to cloth, house, and feed them. The fact that many undocumented aliens are children also makes treating them as criminals inconvenient from the government's standpoint since juvenile rights would kick in.
Being an illegal immigrant, as Chris noted, is considered a civil rather than criminal violation. Its akin to a restaurant not fully following all the health regulations rather than burglary.
Yes, the weakest aspect of the Scandinavian system is that it doesn't give the state a clear cut way to deal with psychopaths. I think that there are pretty compelling reasons to segregate psycopaths that commit crimes. They might not be able to help it because of mens rea problems but that doesn't mean we have to let them harm people if we can avoid it. There are more than a few psyopaths that manage to hobble through life without doign to much harm.
I should also point out that the Scandinavian prison system is an aspect of their welfare state thats in line with libertarian principles since most libertarians still give police powers to the state.
Sorry, I should have elaborated. Each Scandanavian country is slightly differnt but basically they all stopped emphasizing the punishment aspect of prisons after WWII and really focus on rehabilitating prisoners through exercise, job training, and other therapies. There worst prisons are a lot nicer than our minimum security prisons. There were more than a few articles about Scandinavian prisons in the American press around the time of the Brevik massacre in Norway. It was repeatedly pointed out that the longest sentence that could get in Norway is twenty-one years. The New York Times had a very long and informative article on Norway's prison system and its probably the most humane type ever developed.
The problem with implementing the Scandinavian system elsewhere is that it requires an extraordinary amount of good faith, gentleness, and geneorisity from citizens. They have to give up their right to vengence basically because it rests on the idea that using prison as a punishment is counter-productive.
The gangs could outsource at least part of the initation to governments that way. I imagine that a lot of them would want to completely give all the hazing fun to the police though.
One, people are very good at justifying their actions. I've done some really stupid shit that I came up with somesort of justification for even if it was only it made me feel better. I'm pretty sure that thieves aren't the most humble people and are pretty good at rationalizing their crimes. People who commit much worse crimes are rationalizing it.
Two, this represents the vengeful streak in American society. Like ND pointed out above, many and maybe even most Americans are skeptical about rehabilitations. Thats why we do a half-ass job of it in prison and why we continue to punish people for their crimes after their prison sentence is over in many ways. We do this even if it leads people back to a lot of crime.
I really think that the Scandanavians have come up with the only just solution for criminals. It isn't the best solution because it lets some really nasty people off easily. It does seem to work better than our system. The problem is that many Americans do not want to treat criminals that gently.
We can do what the Scandinavians do but that would require a level of generosity, gentleness, and taxation that I don't think most Americans could bear.
I think a good analogy to bestiality is all the old games that humans used to play with animals like bear and bull baiting, cock fighting, fox hunting, etc. All of these games are illegal in most of the developed world and you could get into major trouble for indulging in them. Most people see themselves as cruel to the animals involved and causing unnecessary pain on them. Bestiality is wrong for the same reason, we can be fairly sure that the animal is experience pain.
Now its also true that most of the methods that we use to get products from animals involves inflicting the ultimate pain that of death but I'd feebly argue that there is a difference. Humans are omnivorous and meat forms an important part of the human diet. Its a good source of protein and it provides nutrition. Since meat eating is a necessity than killing animals for their meat is not immoral. If your killing for meat than you might as well use the rest of the animal.
On “Rand Paul, the Confederacy, and Liberty”
"I have no room in my heart for Jewish suffering - Why do you pester me with Jewish troubles?" - Rosa Luxemberg. See also Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question.
"
Its not very hard to find people who say that Israel shoul go away. In large swathes of the world, its actual a popular political position. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, and numerous other organizations are open in saying that the only just solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is the destruction of Israel or the Zionist entity to them.
Their allies in the West tend to over look this or actively endorse this and imagine a future where Israel disappears and is replaced by a "secular, democratic Palestine", which is something that the Palestinians don't even want.
"
Yes, this. The only reason we avoided Holocaust II right after Holocaust I was because Stalin died just before he could carry out his plan to send all the Jews to labor camps in Siberia. Without Israel, the viciously anti-Semitic governments of Eastern Europe would simply have hundreds of thousands more Jews to persecute.
What would the fate of the Middle Eastern Jews be without Israel? Nothig good. At best they would be treated with benign neglect and simply allowed to be while not really being viewed as part of the nation. At worse, they would be actively persecuted. Many of them would have to face the same damned if you do, damned if you don't choices that other minorities in the Middle East had. Do they support the secular dictator for paper equality and marginal protection or face the reality of majority rule and hope for the best? Either choice isn't good.
"
Yeah, maybe if the Anti-Zionists would stop resorting to obviously anti-Semtic troops when criticizing Israel and think of why possibly we Jews might want our own state and ponder what would be our fate without Israel than we can move forward. Maybe if they stopped presenting Israel as the source of all evil and trouble in the Middle East because its rapidly clear to anybody capable of thought that its not. Maybe if they look slightly more closely at their allies and all the madness and hatred spewed against the Jews in the Muslim world. Maybe if the anti-Zionists can approach this with even a modicum of seriousness.
At best, the anti-Zionists express nothing but antipathy towards us Jews. They are the type of people of reacted to the progroms that occured after the Holocaust with the reply, "progroms, there have always been progroms" before going back to sleep. They say they feel compassion towards all the oppressed but when we need help, we are ignored while demanding our help because we are persecuted. At worse, the anti-Zionists are painfully obvious Jew-haters that are struggling to find away to express their perverted fantasies and bigotry without looking bad.
"
This. A lot of people only give things a surface reading rather than a deep reading. Its why people can read Wurthering Heights and think Healthcliff is dreamy rather than see the darker undertones. The general assumption should be that many people are going to miss any subtext and focus on the text-text.
"
This. A lot of people only give things a surface reading rather than a deep reading. Its why people can read Wurthering Heights and think Healthcliff is dreamy rather than see the darker undertones. The general assumption should be that many people are going to miss any subtext and focus on the text-text.
"
A lot of conservative Constitutional views seem to stem from wanting the American Constitution to read like the Confederate one. Let that speak for itself.
On “How To Make a Sandwich”
The best sandwhich is roast beef on rye with lettuce, tomatos, onions, maybe pickles, and mayo or mustard depending on the flavor that your going for.
On “Les Misérables”
I think its about one million, give or take, from what I remember from a training class for DACA.
"
In New York, the bulk of restaurant workers in certain types of restaurant establishments and many construction workers are immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Usually they work in the non-chain, non-franchize but not necessarily high class restaurants. Chinese immigrants tend to go into restaurant work, construction, or providing services to other Chinese immigrants. Hispanics tend towards the same plus gardening work and domestic service, which Chinese immigrants tend to avoid unless their employer is also Chinese.
"
I'm an immigration lawyer. Being an illegal immigrant is considered a civil rather than criminal violation because treating illegal immigrants as criminals would tax the resources of the Federal Government. In removal proceedings, immigrants may get a lawyer to represent them but the Federal Government doesn't need to provide one. If being an illegal immigrant was a federal crime than the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would kick in. Since undocumented aliens are only considered civil violators, they don't have to be locked up during the course of their proceedings which saves the federal government a lot of money to since they don't have to cloth, house, and feed them. The fact that many undocumented aliens are children also makes treating them as criminals inconvenient from the government's standpoint since juvenile rights would kick in.
"
Being an illegal immigrant, as Chris noted, is considered a civil rather than criminal violation. Its akin to a restaurant not fully following all the health regulations rather than burglary.
On “Because of all we’ve seen, Because of all we’ve said, We are the dead”
Yes, the weakest aspect of the Scandinavian system is that it doesn't give the state a clear cut way to deal with psychopaths. I think that there are pretty compelling reasons to segregate psycopaths that commit crimes. They might not be able to help it because of mens rea problems but that doesn't mean we have to let them harm people if we can avoid it. There are more than a few psyopaths that manage to hobble through life without doign to much harm.
"
I should also point out that the Scandinavian prison system is an aspect of their welfare state thats in line with libertarian principles since most libertarians still give police powers to the state.
"
Sorry, I should have elaborated. Each Scandanavian country is slightly differnt but basically they all stopped emphasizing the punishment aspect of prisons after WWII and really focus on rehabilitating prisoners through exercise, job training, and other therapies. There worst prisons are a lot nicer than our minimum security prisons. There were more than a few articles about Scandinavian prisons in the American press around the time of the Brevik massacre in Norway. It was repeatedly pointed out that the longest sentence that could get in Norway is twenty-one years. The New York Times had a very long and informative article on Norway's prison system and its probably the most humane type ever developed.
The problem with implementing the Scandinavian system elsewhere is that it requires an extraordinary amount of good faith, gentleness, and geneorisity from citizens. They have to give up their right to vengence basically because it rests on the idea that using prison as a punishment is counter-productive.
"
There is a clothing store in my neighborhood that also likes to shame shop lifters.
"
The gangs could outsource at least part of the initation to governments that way. I imagine that a lot of them would want to completely give all the hazing fun to the police though.
"
One, people are very good at justifying their actions. I've done some really stupid shit that I came up with somesort of justification for even if it was only it made me feel better. I'm pretty sure that thieves aren't the most humble people and are pretty good at rationalizing their crimes. People who commit much worse crimes are rationalizing it.
Two, this represents the vengeful streak in American society. Like ND pointed out above, many and maybe even most Americans are skeptical about rehabilitations. Thats why we do a half-ass job of it in prison and why we continue to punish people for their crimes after their prison sentence is over in many ways. We do this even if it leads people back to a lot of crime.
I really think that the Scandanavians have come up with the only just solution for criminals. It isn't the best solution because it lets some really nasty people off easily. It does seem to work better than our system. The problem is that many Americans do not want to treat criminals that gently.
"
We can do what the Scandinavians do but that would require a level of generosity, gentleness, and taxation that I don't think most Americans could bear.
On “Bestiality!”
You can't base legislation on an ick factor. The results tend not to be very pleasant.
"
I think a good analogy to bestiality is all the old games that humans used to play with animals like bear and bull baiting, cock fighting, fox hunting, etc. All of these games are illegal in most of the developed world and you could get into major trouble for indulging in them. Most people see themselves as cruel to the animals involved and causing unnecessary pain on them. Bestiality is wrong for the same reason, we can be fairly sure that the animal is experience pain.
Now its also true that most of the methods that we use to get products from animals involves inflicting the ultimate pain that of death but I'd feebly argue that there is a difference. Humans are omnivorous and meat forms an important part of the human diet. Its a good source of protein and it provides nutrition. Since meat eating is a necessity than killing animals for their meat is not immoral. If your killing for meat than you might as well use the rest of the animal.
"
I must have skimmed over that part.
"
I'd rather live if that was an option.
"
I think so, animals can't meaningful give consent. I'd put screwing animals in the same category as bear or bull baiting, cruelty.
On “Next Up: Polygamy”
Wasn't that the basic plot of most Hollywood romance movies in the 1950s?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.