Election Thread

[--Pete]

Hi,

If I was so damned good, I'd be published. :(

I think you should be published, and would be if you just contemplate:

The race goes to the swift, I s'pose,
or else the slow and steady,
or else the passionate, or those
who bothered to get ready,
or ones who coached themselves, or those
meticulously mentored.
But every single time it goes
to somebody who entered.
- Jeff Mallet 2003

--Pete

PS And I want an autographed first edition;)

[Assur]

Because standard, garden variety eurotrash are the beneficiaries of two generations of being security leaches, are oblivious to that state of play, and top it off by being blinders-on ingrates.
Occhi

Oh really?! The reason the US stayed on after '45 was:

a. To prevent a resurgent Germany from happening

and

b. To stop the Commies taking over the industrial base of Western Europe!

eppie isn't really relevant or actual, but as long guys like him distract you we aren't going to complain:whistling:

[Roland]

If Occhi uses a single feather, I am probably guilty of using the whole chicken.

Yeah, that about sums up my experience of your posts: beating everyone over the head with a live chicken.

I more often than not end up shooting myself in the foot when I post... and then snacking on the bleeding remains.:P

I really should put more care and thought into my posts.

[Roland]

I'd say that is because people see marriage as a moral act. One of ethics. A choice to dedicate themselves to each other and no one else. And typically, the people have these sorts of morals tend to be people who believe in God.

Perhaps that is what the God fearing folk are so upset about. The homosexuals in society are developing morals and ethics for things that outsiders see as an immoral act. Thinking about it, I can see how that might lead to some conflicting feelings.

If somebody's opinions tell them homosexuality = immoral then they would have a very hard time connecting any sort of moral or ethical boundry with what they believe is wrong. How could anything wrong have small bits of good scattered through it?

Meh, I am probably talking out of my ass.

That's the most lucid thing you've said in this entire thread. I think you hit the nail on the head. Or one nail. Well done.

[Vandiablo]

A post sure to be unfavorable with donkeys . . .

I'd say that is because people see marriage as a moral act. One of ethics. A choice to dedicate themselves to each other and no one else. And typically, the people have these sorts of morals tend to be people who believe in God.

... in the God who supposedly wrote the Book that tells them to stone to death men who lie with men.

Those ain't my morals. I think that Book also has the same punishment for lying with an ass. Reminds me, I haven't had a good ass in weeks. *HEE HAW!*

If you imply that all of us non-believers are scoundrels, I will be offended. I may indeed be a scoundrel, sir, but it's by my choice under my terms and not enforced upon me by my agnosticism.

Perhaps that is what the God fearing folk are so upset about. The homosexuals in society are developing morals and ethics for things that outsiders see as an immoral act. Thinking about it, I can see how that might lead to some conflicting feelings.

And if I may offer my own "tend" opinion -- it seems to me that the most ardent believers tend to only see things in black and white. If it's not right, it's wrong. Shades of gray are just scoundrels trying to get away with something.

If somebody's opinions tell them homosexuality = immoral then they would have a very hard time connecting any sort of moral or ethical boundry with what they believe is wrong. How could anything wrong have small bits of good scattered through it?

Yep. How can the world be different than what they taught me in Sunday school?

Meh, I am probably talking out of my ass.

Well, that's okay -- as long as you're not lying with it. *HEE HAW*

-V

[Vandiablo]

Aye, matey. I'd nail to the mast a link to sumthin' for the landlubbers, but I've got some ravishing to do. Pass aft the rum, Darby.

Pastafarian?

[kandrathe]

That is like discussing the properties of things that are apples, and things that aren't. One group has reasonable boundaries. The other does not.

-Jester

Not quite. The thing we know is that Atheists would not subscribe to the notion of a spiritual union. If marriage is defined as a spiritual union between a man and a women, then it is inconsistent with atheistic philosophy. My point. The theists define marriage that way. So, for them, it is outrageous for the secular world to try to redefine a sacrament to include things that are inconsistent with religious doctrine.

[kandrathe]

... in the God who supposedly wrote the Book that tells them to stone to death men who lie with men.
...
Yep. How can the world be different than what they taught me in Sunday school?
...

You didn't pay very good attention then. The NEW testament redefines mans relationship with God, and the purpose of Christianity (as opposed to Judaism - Mosaic Law) is to replace the old laws with a new covenant. Do you remember "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"?

[Griselda]

Yes, but don't you think that they don't see bettering themselves, because the social programs have offered them a means to survive without lifting a finger? It is surprising as to what people can accomplish when they have nothing to rely on except themselves. This is one of the major reasons and possibly THE major reason why in general, immigrants (legal ones that is) do well.

-A

Well, we were talking about success in school, particularly the early years of school. I can see how that argument would apply to adults (although we will have to agree to disagree on that one), but kids? Should we end social programs for 5 year olds, so that they can decide to try harder in school and better themselves?

[kandrathe]

Well, we were talking about success in school, particularly the early years of school. I can see how that argument would apply to adults (although we will have to agree to disagree on that one), but kids? Should we end social programs for 5 year olds, so that they can decide to try harder in school and better themselves?

It is probably more expensive, but our school district has ECFE (Early Childhood Family Education) which is funded by participants indexed by income. So, those who make more fund those who make very little. My observation is that it does an excellent job in preparing 0-4 year olds, and their parents for parenting and later Kindergarten. As a result, there are very few children in our elementary schools with behavioral, or learning issues that have not already been dealt with.

It is contrary to my libertarian ideals, but I would pay tax money to fund a program like this. And actually, when it comes to people starving, and dying of lack of basic medical care I would also want to pay enough taxes to insure people in dire need are helped.

[Occhidiangela]

If you imply that all of us non-believers are scoundrels, I will be offended.

You are indeed a scoundrel, sir Van, but not from any belief or non belief. You became a scoundrel the old fashioned way: you earned it. :D

You are in fine company.

Occhi

[eppie]

Yes, but don't you think that they don't see bettering themselves, because the social programs have offered them a means to survive without lifting a finger? It is surprising as to what people can accomplish when they have nothing to rely on except themselves. This is one of the major reasons and possibly THE major reason why in general, immigrants (legal ones that is) do well.

-A

Absolutely wrong.
If everybody could play basketball as good as Michael Jordan do you think they would be paid 10 miljon a year for that?

There are not enough resources in this world for everybody to be a succes...one person being very rich means other persons very poor.


You would be right if all the work that people do would make our world a better place. But ironically football-players, commercials, and lawyers don't increase our general economy....and for that reason it is just rearranging the share that we get from the big pie (which does not get bigger).

Countries with good social systems are for some reason much better to live...that must have a reason. (and Im not talking juts for people that don't work).

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
I think you should be published, and would be if you just contemplate:

The race goes to the swift, I s'pose,
or else the slow and steady,
or else the passionate, or those
who bothered to get ready,
or ones who coached themselves, or those
meticulously mentored.
But every single time it goes
to somebody who entered.
- Jeff Mallet 2003

--Pete

PS And I want an autographed first edition;)

Yes, I have so contemplated, shall try again. I got another boost of "get writing and submitting" from a complete stranger on another forum, to add to both your and other encouragement.

An autographed first edition you shall have, sir, should such come to pass.

Occhi

[BigGrim]

I'm curious. How do you explain the fact that Asians as a group are so successful? I mean, they came to the US just like so many other immigrants, poor with no language skills. Yet they've got to be the most prosperous and successful group in this country. They don't seem to need any "special" programs either. In fact, they're so successful that while they are definately a minority, I think that as far as special programs are concerned, they get as much benefits from them as whites do - less than zero. Yet, many of these people have been poor for generations in their old country, and often enough the first generation stays poor in this country also. I, of course know why this is the case. Your explanation?

-A

Ooo! Ooo! Me! Me! I'll chime in!

The success of Asian immigrants, I believe, is based on a multigenerational quality inherent to most Asian countries for more than a couple millenia. Confucianism, a philosophy that emphasizes education and meritocracy, has influenced many nations for a long, long, long, loooooooong time. China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam have all been influenced by this philosophy system. Buddhism and Hinduism also have ideologies that promote the pursuit of knowledge on the path of enlightenment as the spiritual goal for their followers, so that further promotes the Asian "culture of learning".

As Griselda mentioned multigenerational poverty with certain children are not expected to succeed as well as others, but that bias can go both ways. Asians are expected to excel in academics. Even if society didn't emphasize this through media, many asian parents expect their children to perform well at school. The children are taught from an early age by their parents to strive to succeed. Furthermore, Asian parents tend to go out of their way to give their child as many advantages as possible to seek new knowledge and excel. Anyone familiar with Japanese culture knows that not only do those children go to regular school, but they often go to other classes afterwards to compete in that society (Which does lead to some negative social connotations). Likewise, in Asian communities, you often see private schools offering enhanced education courses like those that aid in the SAT's.

In recent generations, Asian immigrants aren't always the poorest of the poor either. Take into account the rise of communism in Vietnam that caused many educated Vietnamese families to flee from their nation and immigrate to the United States. The Philippines was a colony of the United States for almost forty years counting the period of World War II. I personally know that in the Philippines, numerous doctors are going back to school to become nurses because they can immigrate much easier to the U.S. with those types of degrees. Successful immigrants bring in family members who support one another and make it easier for these new immigrants, so there are many first generation immigrants that do quite well.

I had a history teacher who retired recently who commented on the Americanization of Asian children. He noted that the further the children got from the first generation of immigrants and the more Americanized they were, the less diligent they were in their studies. There's something to be said about hunger from immigrating into the land of opportunity. I've heard the same said of Latino communities where first generation immigrants work hard as hell to provide their children opportunities and it's the latter generations that squander them.

As for the Black communities? People who immigrate from Africa are some of the hardest working and educated people I've met out there and often very successful. They haven't been indoctrinated by years of American expectations that also manage to benefit the Asians.

This has been another Asian immigrant offering a detailed explanation of his opinion. Thanks for reading!

[Occhidiangela]

This has been another Asian immigrant offering a detailed explanation of his opinion. Thanks for reading!

I enjoyed your post.

I wish I had a copy of one of the commentaries I read in the early 1990's about "Asian immigrants" in California (it pointed mostly to Koreans). The gist of it was that local Korean communities were very good at internal networking, favor sharing, and at finding and acquiring working capital. The article seemed to imply a sort of "farmer's co-op" approach to families in the newtork. There was a hint to "reachback" into the Korean mother land, but I don't recall the author pinning his points on that.

The author pointed to a void in the (California) black community, as he saw it, in both the networking (particularly in raising capital) and in the entrepeneureal spirit. His theme was that micro economic development (the exam question being answered in the article) was not a failed attempt to re-energize some inner city blight, but a good idea that had not been given enough time to gestate, to nurture the attitude and world view that modest success (running a convenience store, opening a small business, opening a delivery franchise, running the local shoe store) was still a success to be proud of. At the time Atlanta was seeing a bit of a black-owned business boom, and I recall being less than impressed with the article's applicability beyond California.

The context is important. This was during the discussion of "are you better off now than four years ago," and the attendant accusation of the "American Dream" skipping parts of America, as well as looks into the root causes of this perception, and the various bits of reality that pointed to it.

I don't think it was a William Raspberry column, but it might have been.

Was the observation on the co-op method of raising capital accurate, to your knowledge?

Occhi

[BigGrim]

I enjoyed your post.

I wish I had a copy of one of the commentaries I read in the early 1990's about "Asian immigrants" in California (it pointed mostly to Koreans). The gist of it was that local Korean communities were very good at internal networking, favor sharing, and at finding and acquiring working capital. The article seemed to imply a sort of "farmer's co-op" approach to families in the newtork. There was a hint to "reachback" into the Korean mother land, but I don't recall the author pinning his points on that.

Was the observation on the co-op method of raising capital accurate, to your knowledge?

Occhi

I got complimented for my post by Occhi! I'd swoon, but I don't have a Phoenix Down handy to revive me. Err...Don't mind the Final Fantasy reference...

I'm not too knowledgeable about banks nationwide, but here in California there are plenty of "Asian-themed" banks up and running. East-West Bank, the bank of Michelle Kwan, being one of the more notable ones that are around these parts. I don't know if there are any other banks that cater towards specific ethicities, but there are plenty of them in California that appeal to Asian minorities. It might not be my place to say and it might not be true, but I'd presume that considering the more limited appeal of an Asian bank in America, most people applying for help from them are probably Asians. Business owners, homeowners, and other people who generally require capital to do anything in life.

Once again, culture comes into play with the concept of Karma and how it plays a central role in Buddhism and Hinduism. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. I've gotten help from people I've met once or twice simply because they knew my grandmother who did something nice for them. I have been influenced with the philosophy to be generous because it will return to you someday in kind, perhaps not from the person you helped, but in the help from someone else.

Favor sharing, internal networking, and raising community capital are things that asian communities tend to be good at. Consider that in many large cities there tends to be a Chinatown. In California, we have a Little India, Little Tokyo, and so on and so forth. The disadvantage of this is the fact that Asian communities also have a reputation for their isolationist principles. Even amongst different Asian ethnicities there can be some racial discord.

[kandrathe]

...
There are not enough resources in this world for everybody to be a succes...one person being very rich means other persons very poor.

Not necessarily true. Riches lie in more things than monetary and property wealth. I think it was John D. Rockefeller, Jr. whose only real occupation for his lifetime was figuring out how to distribute his fathers mountain of wealth to worthwhile causes. The real question though is, if I have 535 pieces of paper with 1$ printed on them, and you have 535 million similar pieces of paper, and a sandwich costs 5$ is either of us poor? No. The expression of wealth in bank notes only means that the person with more has a bigger cushion between comfort and discomfort. You could waste your money and buy all the sandwiches leaving me to go hungry, but as long as goods are abundant enough to feed, clothe, and house everyone, the only differences would be in ostentation. The whole "Gap" between the rich and poor is a rubric used by socialists to justify redistribution of wealth. If everyone is fed, clothed, and housed, there is no gap. Only jealousy.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If everyone is fed, clothed, and housed, there is no gap. Only jealousy.

Well said.

--Pete

[Jester]

The whole "Gap" between the rich and poor is a rubric used by socialists to justify redistribution of wealth. If everyone is fed, clothed, and housed, there is no gap. Only jealousy.

Is there a country in the world where everyone is fed, clothed, and housed? I would add, where they are also given adequate medical care, and a chance to educate themselves?

Not many, I'd wager. Certainly not Canada. Certainly not the United States.

-Jester

[Jester]

Not quite. The thing we know is that Atheists would not subscribe to the notion of a spiritual union. If marriage is defined as a spiritual union between a man and a women, then it is inconsistent with atheistic philosophy. My point. The theists define marriage that way. So, for them, it is outrageous for the secular world to try to redefine a sacrament to include things that are inconsistent with religious doctrine.

Would then each religion consider marriages from other religions, whose spiritual "powers" they have no acceptance of, to be marriages?

I would contend they do, by and large. Marriage is a cultural institution first, and then a religious or secular one.

If all you're saying is that there exists a certain class of people who define marriage as the spiritual bond, and *only* the spiritual bond, between people, then I'd agree with you.

If you're saying that all theists see it that way, or that atheists should renounce the concept of marriage on that basis, I'd disagree. I say that's far too narrow a definition to be either philosophically or historically tenable. Extremists aside, people understand marriage as a worldly concept, as well as a spiritual one.

-Jester