[Terez]

[worry]

Yah, it was almost slapstick. You're probably gonna go to Malazan jail for posting a gif, but it was worth it.

[Terez]

I thought about that when I posted it, but I figured it was a special occasion.

[Obdigore]

lol did you see the 'Tea Party' response by Rand Paul?

Its... terrible.

[worry]

http://www.huffingto..._n_2688998.html

Not bad, not bad.

[King Lear]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but it's about America so that counts right?

"What to Expect When No One's Expecting: American's Coming Demographic Disaster"

Hands up who thought The Wall Street Journal was a legitimate news source? Because I did and while I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable on American issues, this had me laughing because it was just so wrong. I feel like I'm being trolled

There are several gems but this one has me a bit stumped: "In 1970, the Mexican fertility rate was 6.72. Today, it's just at replacement, a drop of 72% in 40 years. Mexico used to send us several hundred thousand immigrants a year. For the last three years, there has been a net immigration of zero. Some of this decrease is probably related to the recent recession, but much of it is likely the result of a structural shift."

Um? Aren't illegal immigrants from Mexico considered to be a major problem? Is this some sort of cultural thing I'm missing? If your immigration rate is zero but you've still got illegal immigrants coming over the border surely immigration policy, not a declining birthrate, is causing it?

I agree of his conclusions (though perhaps not his solutions, but then I don't know what all of them are); supporting parents and having access to education that doesn't leave you in debt for the rest of your life makes sense to me. But at the same time I don't really see population levels dropping as a completely bad thing. Thoughts anyone?

[worry]

The Wall Street Journal has always been a bastion for economic conservatism, not necessarily without integrity, but it was bought by Rupert Murdoch/Newscorp. like 5 years ago so make of that what you will.

Undocumented immigrants are only a "problem" in the sense that they're easy to use as a wedge issue with racists. In terms of actual details (economics, crime, etc.) it's an invented problem because their presence is by far a net boon. You're right, though, deportations are at an all-time high, so policy and enforcement are major factors here, and the lower level of immigration is largely seen as an economic issue (fewer job incentives here than in previous years). This is the first time I've ever heard of birthrate being argued as a factor. It is a curiously pro-undocumented immigrant argument, except when you consider that it's harder and harder to use as a successful wedge issue, so a lot of previously disdainful people on the right are changing their tune. (http://articles.lati...ration-20121109 )

I'll leave the deep economic analysis to like Terez or whoever, but I'm immediately suspicious (in a hackles-raised sense) that this is predominantly dog whistle women blaming. And that even if it is a problem -- I doubt it's the root problem for much of anything -- these "solutions" are just attempts to graft rote conservative arguments (college is bad, Social Security is broken, taxes should be flatter, blah blah blah) onto an unrelated issue. It all strikes me as disingenuous....especially once you get to: "Regardless of the particulars, the underlying theory is the same: To reduce the tax burden for people who take on the costs of creating new taxpayers (otherwise known as children)." Yah, cuz what's daunting family-planning is the tax burden. Strikes me that this author started with the typical "taxes are too high" lie, found an issue to wrap around it, and wrote the article outwards from that kernel.

[King Lear]

Yeah, I think the bit about how women are out in the workforce doing things other than teaching and nursing *gaspshockhorror* and the grudging admission that's maybe not a completely bad thing gives it away a little. I'm just a bit surprised, even for a conservative paper, the piece is just so lacking in facts. If it was Fox News I wouldn't be surprised, because it's a joke, but the fact it was in the WSJ had me a bit taken aback. Bloody Rupert. That man needs to be stopped. I suppose trying to avoud reading things that are newscorp owned might help.

That link made me chuckle, that's going to confuse a lot of hard core republican voters surely? Because even if the GOP start changing their tune on social issues, it doesn't make their supporters any less racist. Interesting times. I just read a Salon article that came to pretty much the same conclusion. The typo in it made me twitch a bit though...

[Shinrei]

 Terez, on 13 February 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

Gif

Attached File(s)

•  msnbc.jpg (89.04K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[Shinrei]

As for immigration issue:

Path for citizenship please. And please, while you're at it, make my wife's visa to the US cost less than 900+ bucks. No wonder people sneak across the border, if that's what it takes to do it legally...

[HoosierDaddy]

The analysts also talked about how ridiculous they were being in the over-coverage. At least Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnel did.

MSNBC slants left and has basically admitted it with their "Lean Forward" slogan.

[Illuyankas]

Shin: More like 'This man nervously lunged at a bottle of water in the most awkward moment I've ever seen during a failing speech that didn't even come close to covering anything sensible and confirmed Rubio's unreadiness for the big leagues despite the huge push to make him seem like the majority of higherups among the Republican Party aren't horrendously racist. MSNBC probably overdid it but the GOP has problems.'

Didn't the GOP vote against extra security for embassies? Does Obama have the capability to teleport troops? Do you have anything that resembles an actual rationale for the 'Obama let are boys die' theory about Benghazi? Can't we all just get along and call Obama both the least bad option and a total shit about drones and Guantanomo?

As for the Wall Street Journal:

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 23 February 2013 - 08:01 PM

[Terez]

 Shinrei, on 23 February 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

 Terez, on 13 February 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

Gif

(accuses MSNBC of not reporting on Benghazi)

This is not true. For example, on 9/12/12:

Rachel Maddow said:

You saw the president and the vice president today sort of implicitly prepping the country for the possibility that this wasn't just an incident of mob violence, but rather an organized terrorist attack. When both the president and vice president gave statements today about Benghazi, in which they said the U.S. not only mourns this loss and is angered by this loss, but that the United States intends to get justice here.

And on 9/13/12:

Rachel Maddow said:

NPR's Lela Fadel also spoke to a number of witnesses on the scene. People who were in the area that night. Here's what she reported a short time ago. She said, "A lot of the witnesses we've spoken to, neighbors, the son of a landlord, a Libyan guard who was wounded in the first part of the attack on Tuesday night, all say there was no protest at all. They say it began and ended as an organized attack on the consulate." An organized attack. Anybody who tells you that what happened to our ambassador and our consulate in Libya was as a result of a protest over an offensive movie, you should ask them why they think that. That's the first version of events we heard. That does not seem to explain what happened that night or by the facts or the more facts we get.

Maddow gave excellent coverage on Libya for the first few days after the attack, along with others. MSNBC only dropped the story when the Republicans started foaming at the mouth about their conspiracy theories.

[worry]

Path to citizenship would be ideal, but I think upon last report (from USA Today a week ago, kinda source I know) the White House was aiming more for a path to residency (for people who are already here illegally), which I suppose is better-than-nothing compromise in terms of rejecting the outcries for universal deportation (irrational) and the objection to cutting in line ahead of "legal" immigrants (relatively rational idea, if a basically mythical problem in terms of it ever actually happening). I'm still on the fence here. But if meanwhile in the midst of larger immigration reform they can streamline the process for your wife, Shin, that would be awesome.

[Shinrei]

Anyone who has been through the US Visa process knows that our system is monstrously...stupid. I can't think of any better word than that.

I waffle back and forth on the immigration issue, but more and more I find that I like holding ourselves to the ideal of the immigrant nation, where we accept everyone who wishes to come and make their own American dream. I realize there are issues of entitlements and all that stuff, but in this case I think detention and deportation is just ruining peoples lives who are just looking for something better. The only thing that concerns me these days border-wise is the drug trafficking, and being the filthy libertarian I am I say just legalize the stuff and undercut the criminals.

[worry]

Agreed on all fronts. I think the most valid concern is the "cutting in line" thing, but there are practical solutions that don't involve all-or-nothing, throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater positions. Anyone hyperbolizing that issue isn't honestly seeking a solution (and it's one of the reasons Jon Huntsman's early ouster from the Republican race in favor of Romney and the crazies was so unfortunate). Plus, all this focus on citizenship (at least in the political rhetoric, and therefore in the news), distracts from how a lot of the worst gridlock and screwy law lies in the visa and green card processes. You're seeing it first hand.

Also with you on the drug/border thing wholeheartedly. Except as a resident of the southwest US's desert region, I would insert an addendum against residential meth labs. In this one instance, I'd urge safety over freedom.

[Assail]

When a new issue ticks over I'll comment... I'm too lazy to read back to the start of any and all immigration points.

[Gnaw]

 worrywort, on 24 February 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

Agreed on all fronts..

Also with you on the drug/border thing wholeheartedly. Except as a resident of the southwest US's desert region, I would insert an addendum against residential meth labs. In this one instance, I'd urge safety over freedom.

Legalize drugs. Labs move out df residential into industrial ares. Regulated, taxed, etc. Theoretically at least.

[Obdigore]

Who wants to rage?

http://www.secularhu...&page=swan_19_1

Quote

When pediatrician Seth Asser and I studied these deaths, we found that, of 172 U.S. children who died between 1975 and 1995 after their parents withheld medical care on religious grounds, 140 fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. We believe that the cases in our files were only the minor fraction of the actual number of deaths. Only 43 of 172 deaths were prosecuted. In many cases public officials dismissed these deaths as due to natural causes.

Quote

States with a religious defense to the most serious crimes against children include Iowa and Ohio (a religious defense to manslaughter); Delaware and West Virginia (religious defenses to murder of a child); Arkansas (religious defense to capital murder); and Oregon (religious defenses to homicide by abuse or neglect, manslaughter, criminal mistreatment, and nonsupport). Oregon laws extend religious immunity beyond medical neglect. A parent may be beating or torturing a child, but if he or she can show that the child was prayed for, criminal charges must be dismissed.

Quote

The very idea of children having rights is threatening to many Americans. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by 191 nations. Only the United States and Somalia have not.

Quote

Courts have consistently ruled that the First Amendment does not include a right to deprive children of medical care, but legislators nevertheless continue to give parents such rights by statute. Some argue that parents motivated by religion do not intend for the child to be hurt and therefore should have an exemption from child abuse and neglect charges. But nearly all parents love their children and believe they are acting in their children’s best interest. It takes more than good intentions to nurture and protect a child.

The limits of religious freedom would not be hard to understand if adult interests were being compromised. No legislature has enacted religious defenses to crimes against adults.

The bottom line is that children are helpless and that parents have custody of them. Society must require parents to provide children with the necessities of life regardless of their religious beliefs.

[HoosierDaddy]

A case of competing constitutional rights: the right to raise your child as you see fit as protected by the First and its protection of religion and the right of a child to... pretty much everything.

How this stands Constitutional muster I'll never understand. The right to raise your child ceases at the point in which you fail to care for your child, religion or not.

I've had to write actual legal documents to courts about this shit. It's disgusting.