Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

OTP - Jan 2013: Jewish Journal:E1: An error in baseball and Mideast politics

Tripon Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:48 PM | 2805 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: ot, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 29 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
   201. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:09 PM (#4338514)
In domestic news, the House GOP let the Violence Against Women Act expire. But women should definitely vote Republican and there is no War On Women.


Obviously.
   202. Tripon Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:17 PM (#4338518)
Women should vote for Republicans in order to keep the Man in place.
   203. NattyBoh Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:17 PM (#4338519)
There is also Tibet, though there wasn't much uprooting there in reality.


Just bringing in Han Chinese by the truckload (and now by railway car). Same thing in Sinkiang with the Uighurs, thought that doesn't get much sympathetic press.

Also look to Dafur as a flavor of the month.
   204. tshipman Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:18 PM (#4338520)
Israel is the lamest thing to talk about w/r/t politics.

Everyone in the US agrees on the potential solution (two states, with land swaps loosely based on the 1967 borders), and all the discussion is just a bunch of empty rhetoric about who is more to blame for the last 40 years of failing to make the obvious deal.

It's silly because there is no real disagreement over anything. It's just rhetoric.
   205. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:27 PM (#4338529)
I apologize for accusing you of getting your information from the Nation; this is so cartoonish and sophomoric that it must come from Mad Magazine or something.

Always good to get reading advice from the faction who thinks Ayn Rand provides snappy answers.
   206. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:32 PM (#4338531)
I apologize for accusing you of getting your information from the Nation; this is so cartoonish and sophomoric that it must come from Mad Magazine or something.


Oh, Davey. You're adorable when she lets you plug in the electric power.

My primary reading, politically at least, comes from Andrew Sullivan links, The American Conservative, Foreign Policy, the Atlantic, and Jacobin. Also the occasional long form pull from The Browser. Next.
   207. tshipman Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:38 PM (#4338536)
My primary reading, politically at least, comes from Andrew Sullivan links


So you're well informed on circumcision, gay marriage, Beagles and Andrew Sullivan, I see.
   208. Srul Itza Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:51 PM (#4338542)
People are circumcising beagles?
   209. The District Attorney Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:56 PM (#4338546)
Good grief!
   210. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:59 PM (#4338549)
"Curses, moheled again!"
   211. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 03, 2013 at 11:14 PM (#4338558)
So you're well informed on circumcision, gay marriage, Beagles and Andrew Sullivan, I see.


And pot.
   212. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: January 03, 2013 at 11:34 PM (#4338572)
Sully posted a little thing I wrote about my grandfathers ww2 refugee dog a couple days ago. "The Mutts of War, Ctd."
   213. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:21 AM (#4338623)
In domestic news, the House GOP let the Violence Against Women Act expire. But women should definitely vote Republican and there is no War On Women. (The updated VAWA also had more protection for transgendered and male victims of domestic violence, which is sorely needed.)

Right, there is no "war on women," at least not by conservatives. It's not like an expired VAWA makes it legal to beat up women.

The GOP was perfectly willing to extend the existing VAWA. It simply refused to allow Dems to add some absurd new provisions, including one that would subject U.S. citizens to tribal courts.

***
Sully posted a little thing I wrote about my grandfathers ww2 refugee dog a couple days ago. "The Mutts of War, Ctd."

Very nice story about (and picture of) your grandfather. Andrew Sullivan's postscript was more than a little jarring, though. (Sullivan, as Tom Hanks' title character said in Charlie Wilson's War, "could depress a bride on her wedding day.")
   214. DA Baracus Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:25 AM (#4338625)
People are circumcising beagles?


Just the ones who are getting gay married. Pay attention.
   215. zachtoma Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:29 AM (#4338631)
See what I mean? This isn't in the same zip code as being right. Lieberman is not at all one of them. That's like saying that because the religious right was anti-communist, and Barry Goldwater was anti-communist, he must have been a member of the religious right. just because you think religious people are crazy and 'settlers' are crazy doesn't mean that they are the same people. Lieberman is a Soviet immigrant. That's an entirely different electoral group in Israel.


Umm... Lieberman actually lives in a West Bank settlement. Like, for real. It's called Nokdim. Go visit and say hello if he's not busy beating up local 12 year-olds.
   216. Tripon Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:32 AM (#4338633)

The GOP was perfectly willing to extend the existing VAWA. It simply refused to allow Dems to add some absurd new provisions, including one that would subject U.S. citizens to tribal courts.


So its okay for people to rape women on tribal lands. Got it.
   217. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:33 AM (#4338635)
So its okay for people to rape women on tribal lands. Got it.

Right, without VAWA, it's legal to rape women on tribal lands. Go peddle that nonsense elsewhere.
   218. Tripon Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:34 AM (#4338636)
USA Baby Care's website makes no attempt to hide why the company's clients travel to Southern California from China and Taiwan. It's to give birth to an American baby.

"Congratulations! Arriving in the U.S. means you've already given your child a surefire ticket for winning the race," the site says in Chinese. "We guarantee that each baby can obtain a U.S. passport and related documents."

That passport is just the beginning of a journey that will lead some of the children back to the United States to take advantage of free public schools and low-interest student loans, as the website notes. The whole family may eventually get in on the act, since parents may be able to piggyback on the child's citizenship and apply for a green card when the child turns 21.

USA Baby Care is one of scores, possibly hundreds, of companies operating so-called maternity hotels tucked away in residential neighborhoods in the San Gabriel Valley, Orange County and other Southern California suburbs. Pregnant women from Chinese-speaking countries pay as much as $20,000 to stay in the facilities during the final months of pregnancy, then spend an additional month recuperating and awaiting the new baby's U.S. passport.

Many of the hotels operate in violation of zoning laws, their locations known mainly to neighbors who observe the expectant mothers' frequent comings and goings.


Will certain people like the state of Arizona say no to these anchor babies?
   219. DA Baracus Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:39 AM (#4338639)
Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you’ll get away with it. That’s because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants. In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation. And then there’s this: According to a General Accounting Office report on “Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters,” federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.


Link
   220. Tripon Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:39 AM (#4338641)

Right, without VAWA, it's legal to rape women on tribal lands. Go peddle that nonsense elsewhere.


As it is, virtually everyone who commits rape on tribal lands get away with it and not face prosecution. A lot of it has to do with the fact that local and state authorities can't or won't commit resources for offenses on tribal lands.

Let me put it this way, Republican senators were able to agree that this legislation was needed, It was only the House Republicans who found issue with it. Joe, what exactly do you find so odious about a group of people trying to protect themselves on their own lands against people who trespass and commit violence against its citizens?

For anyone who wants to read more about this subject, here's a NY Times article from last May.
   221. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:47 AM (#4338644)
Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you’ll get away with it. That’s because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants. In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation. And then there’s this: According to a General Accounting Office report on “Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters,” federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

This is funny. You post a hysterical editorial and expect us to believe it's factual.

Do you seriously believe that state or federal authorities, when alerted to a murder on tribal land a couple hours away, simply shrug their shoulders and do nothing?
   222. SteveF Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:47 AM (#4338645)
This.pdf is an interesting cliff notes version of the history of Tribal Courts and the differences between them and the Federal/State court systems.
   223. Tripon Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:49 AM (#4338647)

Do you really expect us to believe this hysterical editorial is factual?

Do you seriously believe that state or federal authorities, when alerted to a murder on tribal land a couple hours away, simply shrug their shoulders and do nothing?

In South Dakota, Indians make up 10 percent of the population, but account for 40 percent of the victims of sexual assault. Alaska Natives are 15 percent of that state’s population, but constitute 61 percent of its victims of sexual assault.

The Justice Department did not prosecute 65 percent of the rape cases on Indian reservations in 2011. And though the department said it had mandated extra training for prosecutors and directed each field office to develop its own plan to help reduce violence against women, some advocates for Native American women said they no longer pressed victims to report rapes.

“I feel bad saying that,” said Sarah Deer, a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota and an authority on violent crime on reservations. “But it compounds the trauma if you are willing to stand up and testify and they can’t help you.”

Despite the low rates of arrests and prosecutions, convicted sexual offenders are abundant on tribal lands. The Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, with about 25,000 people, is home to 99 Class 3 sex offenders, those deemed most likely to commit sex crimes after their release from prison. The Tohono O’odham tribe’s reservation in Arizona, where about 15,000 people live, has 184, according to the Justice Department.

By comparison, Boston, with a population of 618,000, has 252 Class 3 offenders. Minneapolis, with a population of 383,000, has 101, according to the local police.

The agencies responsible for aiding the victims of sexual assault among American Indians are often ill prepared.

The Indian Health Service, for instance, provides exams for rape victims at only 27 of the 45 hospitals it finances and, according to a federal report in 2011, did not keep adequate track of the number of sexual assault victims its facilities treat and lacked an overall policy for treating rape victims. Additionally, the health service has just 73 trained sexual assault examiners.
   224. Sleepy supports unauthorized rambling Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:51 AM (#4338648)
federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases...


Is it OK to inquire why "federal prosecutors" declined to take action? This seems like pretty serious negligence. Assuming this actually happened, do we actually need new laws, or would new prosecutors be more appropriate?

SteveF, your link is broken.
   225. DA Baracus Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:52 AM (#4338649)
According to a General Accounting Office report on “Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters,” federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

This is funny.


Yeah, it's ####### hilarious Joe.
   226. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:52 AM (#4338651)
Let me put it this way, Republican senators were able to agree that this legislation was needed, It was only the House Republicans who found issue with it. Joe, what exactly do you find so odious about a group of people trying to protect themselves on their own lands against people who trespass and commit violence against its citizens?

LOL. The percentage of domestic-violence victims who don't know their abuser is in the single digits. VAWA or no VAWA, there's nothing stopping tribal police from arresting and detaining people who commit crimes.
   227. Tripon Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:57 AM (#4338652)

LOL. The percentage of domestic-violence victims who don't know their abuser is in the single digits. VAWA or no VAWA, there's nothing stopping tribal police from arresting and detaining people who commit crimes.


So you agree we should make it easier to allow them to arrest and prosecute them then?
   228. Tripon Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:59 AM (#4338654)
One last thing from the anchor baby article:
"I don't like that they're able to have anchor babies, but they're real good neighbors," Witherspoon said. "When we're gone, they keep an eye on the house."

In Rowland Heights, the Pheasant Ridge apartments on Colima Road is the home of at least one maternity hotel. The company, Mother of American, displays on its website an image of an expectant woman draped in an American flag. In the parking lot, pregnant women heading to and from the nearby Puente Hills Mall are a common sight.

Zhang Huiting of Beijing is staying at Pheasant Ridge with his wife, who is due to give birth to a son in January. He rented the apartment on his own and is not using a maternity hotel's services, he said.

But the Zhangs' hopes echo those of many hotel clients: They want their child to have access to an American education, which is considered to encourage creativity and be less of a pressure cooker than China's rigorous, exam-based system.
   229. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:01 AM (#4338656)
In South Dakota, Indians make up 10 percent of the population, but account for 40 percent of the victims of sexual assault. Alaska Natives are 15 percent of that state’s population, but constitute 61 percent of its victims of sexual assault.

The Justice Department did not prosecute 65 percent of the rape cases on Indian reservations in 2011. And though the department said it had mandated extra training for prosecutors and directed each field office to develop its own plan to help reduce violence against women, some advocates for Native American women said they no longer pressed victims to report rapes.

“I feel bad saying that,” said Sarah Deer, a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota and an authority on violent crime on reservations. “But it compounds the trauma if you are willing to stand up and testify and they can’t help you.”

Despite the low rates of arrests and prosecutions, convicted sexual offenders are abundant on tribal lands. The Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, with about 25,000 people, is home to 99 Class 3 sex offenders, those deemed most likely to commit sex crimes after their release from prison. The Tohono O’odham tribe’s reservation in Arizona, where about 15,000 people live, has 184, according to the Justice Department.

By comparison, Boston, with a population of 618,000, has 252 Class 3 offenders. Minneapolis, with a population of 383,000, has 101, according to the local police.

The agencies responsible for aiding the victims of sexual assault among American Indians are often ill prepared.

The Indian Health Service, for instance, provides exams for rape victims at only 27 of the 45 hospitals it finances and, according to a federal report in 2011, did not keep adequate track of the number of sexual assault victims its facilities treat and lacked an overall policy for treating rape victims. Additionally, the health service has just 73 trained sexual assault examiners.

The above seems to have little to do with VAWA. Rather, it seems to indicate that the crime rate within the Native American/American Indian population is substantially higher than it is among non-Native Americans (as is true in Canada). There's no evidence in the above that there's an epidemic of non-Native Americans assaulting women on tribal lands.

You'll also note that the above discusses the issue of sexual offenders who live on the reservations, which presumably means they're Native American and not non-Native Americans who commit their crimes on tribal lands and then flee.

You guys need to do better with your citations. #219 and #223 were embarrassingly subjective and/or off-topic, if not deliberately misleading.
   230. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:02 AM (#4338657)
But the Zhangs' hopes echo those of many hotel clients: They want their child to have access to an American education, which is considered to encourage creativity and be less of a pressure cooker than China's rigorous, exam-based system.
This is exactly the reason my parents moved here 35 years ago.
   231. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:03 AM (#4338658)
It just makes no sense to fact check a point that's open to several interpretations. Kessler admits that Obama's comment is accurate when viewed in the context of the current tax rates remaining on the books, and since that was the GOP position he was negotiating against, it's a perfectly fair comparison.
No; the GOP position he was negotiating against had major spending cuts.
IOW, the compromise that passed will reduce the deficit by $700B as compared to the rates that most republicans wanted. Moreover, he criticizes Obama for framing the deal as a victory when it wasn't exactly what he or the Democrats wanted. Huh? That's not a statement that needs to be factchecked in any way, shape, or form, and it's absurd to suggest that Obama should have said "well, I didn't get 100% of what I wanted and therefore I failed."
No; he criticizes Obama for picking and choosing when to compare to current policy vs. current law. Obama is using the former for talking about taxes on the "rich," but then using the latter for talking about taxes on the middle class, pretending that the end of the payroll tax "holiday" has no effect on people's taxes.

(Of course, the really big lie is citing $700 billion as if it were a big number, when -- given that it's over 10 years -- it's basically pocket change, not much more than rounding error in the federal budget. That's the ballpark amount that needs to be sliced off the one year deficit, not the ten year deficit. I did like how Obama was touting the spending cuts, when virtually all spending cuts in the analysis involve lower interest payments rather than eliminating any actual spending.)
   232. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:05 AM (#4338659)
And if you mean "ethnic cleansing", it is happening again. Right now, to the Palestinians.
You can tell, by the fact that the Palestinian population of Israel and the disputed territories is dropping as they're being cleansed from the lands. No, wait, that isn't happening. The only "ethnic cleansing" that has happened in the region is that Jews were all forced to leave Gaza, and Palestinian supporters are trying to render the West Bank Judenrein also.
   233. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:20 AM (#4338665)
personally what I think should have been done was carve out a region of Germany (perhaps one bordering France or Luxembourg) and given that to European Jews- the Germans living there could have been expelled, they had it coming, and besides expelling Germans from regions in Europe in the late 40s was the acceptable thing to do...

No instead, what was done was a million refugees were dropped smack dab in the middle of a population that had nothing to do with the Holocaust...
This is wrong on several levels. First, it mistakenly treats Jews as mere puppets, rather than actors. Jews did not want to live in a "region of Germany" anymore, and they were not "dropped" into Palestine. In fact, they were kept out of Palestine. There's a view out there that treats the state of Israel as a creation of the West; that view is incorrect. Jews created the state of Israel, over the opposition of Britain, and without the support of the West. True, the West ended up recognizing Israel after it was created -- but that's it.

Second, saying that the population "had nothing to do with the Holocaust" is wrong; in fact, the Palestinian Arabs were allied with Hitler. And they had been going around killing Jews in the land long before Israel was formed. (Indeed, it was virulent Arab anti-semitism that caused Britain to close Palestine to Jews before, during, and after the war.)
   234. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:21 AM (#4338666)
In domestic news, the House GOP let the Violence Against Women Act expire. But women should definitely vote Republican and there is no War On Women. (The updated VAWA also had more protection for transgendered and male victims of domestic violence, which is sorely needed.)
Oh, my god. Rape is totally legal now!
   235. AuntBea Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:25 AM (#4338667)
You can tell, by the fact that the Palestinian population of Israel and the disputed territories is dropping as they're being cleansed from the lands. No, wait, that isn't happening. The only "ethnic cleansing" that has happened in the region is that Jews were all forced to leave Gaza, and Palestinian supporters are trying to render the West Bank Judenrein also.


Haha. I know you don't believe this, David. Guess what? Nobody takes you seriously anymore! Why should they with crap like that? Yes the Palestinians certainly ethnically cleansed the Israelis from Gaza! Can't you see you are overplaying your hand? Please keep going you are making us all laugh at you. It's a shame you can't hear it.


Ethnic cleansing does not have to mean the population dwindles, only that a certain ETHNICITY is CLEANSED from the desired territory. That is exactly what is happening. All over the west bank.

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica: "ethnic cleansing, the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups."
   236. Tripon Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:35 AM (#4338673)
Oh, my god. Rape is totally legal now!


The current situation allows a lot of rapes on tribal lands against women to be severally under-reported and under prosecuted. There was legislation that would have made it easier to combat this, and was not implemented.

What other lesson are you supposed to take away other than some people in congress think its okay for rape to occur at the levels that its occurring?

This is an issue where actually, yes, more laws and legislation would help the god damn problem.
   237. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:37 AM (#4338675)
Re: 234

I see people pointed out the silliness of the original post. Cokes.

I would note that allowing tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians on reservations -- even if it were a real issue -- presents serious problems. Tribal courts are not bound by the protections of the constitution, and non-Indians are banned from serving on juries.
   238. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:44 AM (#4338679)
Haha. I know you don't believe this, David. Guess what? Nobody takes you seriously anymore! Why should they with crap like that? Yes the Palestinians certainly ethnically cleansed the Israelis from Gaza! Can't you see you are overplaying your hand? Please keep going you are making us all laugh at you. It's a shame you can't hear it.
Thank you for your input. I will file it with my son's used diapers in the appropriate receptacle.

Ethnic cleansing does not have to mean the population dwindles, only that a certain ETHNICITY is CLEANSED from the desired territory. That is exactly what is happening. All over the west bank.
Uh, yes, ethnic cleansing does have to mean the population dwindles. See, that's what happens when a certain ETHNICITY is CLEANSED. They're not there anymore. Which -- this is something complicated, called math -- means the population lessens. But in fact this is not happening in the West Bank.

On the other hand (a) this did happen in Gaza, and (b) is exactly what people want to have happen to Jews in the West Bank -- that they all be removed. Of course, the Palestinians did not physically cleanse the Israelis from Gaza -- but it happened at their behest. Just as they are demanding with respect to the West Bank, based on the utterly indefensible idea that it is illegal for Jews to live there.
   239. SteveF Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:44 AM (#4338680)
Apologies for the broken link. http://www.icctc.org/Tribal Courts-final.pdf is the aforementioned cliff's notes version of the history of tribal courts and how they differ from federal/state court. Can't seem to figure out how to get the hyperlink to work with the space in it.
   240. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:47 AM (#4338681)
The current situation allows a lot of rapes on tribal lands against women to be severally under-reported and under prosecuted. There was legislation that would have made it easier to combat this, and was not implemented.
You'll note the lack of comparison to non-Indian contexts in the random factoids being presented. What percent of alleged rapes are reported and prosecuted on non-tribal land? And there were real concerns with simply allowing tribal courts to prosecute non-tribal members, as I note in 237. It is illegal everywhere in the U.S. to select a jury based on race -- except on tribal land, where all non-Indians are excluded.
   241. AuntBea Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:53 AM (#4338684)
Uh, yes, ethnic cleansing does have to mean the population dwindles. See, that's what happens when a certain ETHNICITY is CLEANSED. They're not there anymore. Which -- this is something complicated, called math -- means the population lessens. But in fact this is not happening in the West Bank.


In fact it is happening. In the West Bank oOn all the best land, with access to all the best water sources, etc. In Jerusalem every day.

And playing up Israel's politically incisive maneuver to remove the settlers from Gaza as if it was the result of the immense "will" of the Palestinians is just sad. Yes, many Palestinians want Jews off the land. But whatever they want had and is having essentially zero effect on the decision to remove the Gazan settlers (a decision which the Gazan settlers clearly did not want Israel to make), and zero effect on reducing the settler movement in any shape or form. I believe the cartoon that started this was about E-1, or have you already forgotten?

You are arguing an intellectual loser of a position. What is indefensible is not Israel's borders, but the tired justifications Israel has been using now for the last decades. We can all see through it now, David. It's only a matter of time.
   242. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:04 AM (#4338688)
The current situation allows a lot of rapes on tribal lands against women to be severally under-reported and under prosecuted. There was legislation that would have made it easier to combat this, and was not implemented.

As I pointed out above, the bigger problem seems to be Native American men assaulting Native American women. Tribal police don't need VAWA to arrest and prosecute those offenders.

This seems like another Trayvon/Zimmerman situation. Nobody on the left cares when blacks assault blacks or whites assault whites, etc., but as soon as there's a cross-racial or cross-ethnic component, it becomes a competition to see who can exhibit the most self-righteousness.

What other lesson are you supposed to take away other than some people in congress think its okay for rape to occur at the levels that its occurring?

Actually, there are quite a few other lessons one could take away from this other than your silly conclusion.
   243. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:04 AM (#4338689)
As a Muslim of Arab descent, I am going to say some things that I feel are important and I know not everyone will buy. First, some semantics. Arabs are Semites, so the correct term is probably Anti-Jewish. I don't think there is inherent anti-Jew sentiment within Muslims. They, along with Christians, are People of the Scripture and any Muslim who knows anything about his faith that Islam has great respect for those religions. There is a reason why Muslims, Christians, and Jews were able to live in relative harmony in Muslims lands when that wasn't possible in Europe. Is there a raise in anti-Jewish sentiment across the Muslim world now? Absolutely but I think that's a natural response to any conflict over land/resources. I am sure there was anti-German sentiment in much of Europe over the first half of the 20th century. If and when there can be a fair solution to the conflict, this sentiment will likely decrease as anti-German sentiment has decreased.

(Indeed, it was virulent Arab anti-semitism that caused Britain to close Palestine to Jews before, during, and after the war.)

Again, the Arab revolt of the 1930s in Palestine was the result of the Arab feeling that the British Mandate was assisting Jews to help them establish what would become Israel. See the Balfour promise. It's not "virulent anti-Semitism." It's conflict over resources.
   244. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:41 AM (#4338698)
Nobody on the left cares when blacks assault blacks or whites assault whites, etc.
Based on your reaction to gun control and inner city social programs, I'd have thought your problem was that the left cares too much about those things.
   245. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:50 AM (#4338701)
Based on your reaction to gun control and inner city social programs, I'd have thought your problem was that the left cares too much about those things.

Uh huh.
   246. RollingWave Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:33 AM (#4338718)
But the Zhangs' hopes echo those of many hotel clients: They want their child to have access to an American education, which is considered to encourage creativity and be less of a pressure cooker than China's rigorous, exam-based system.
This is exactly the reason my parents moved here 35 years ago.


Well, the great irony is that the US system want to be more like the East Asian once (which are all more or less the same) and vice versa. Taiwan has tried quite hard over the last 15 years or so to try and get more "American" in their education, though now most people seem to regret that decision. (though it's not necessarily the American education part, its that they destroyed a lot of the positive of our old system without actually getting to most of the positives of the American system.)

There are a good deal of kids born in the US though, (but I'm not one.) even the first daughters of the sitting presidents are like that, though he was legitimately studying in Harvard at that time.. which seem to be the actual most common cause of most ABT, I think I heard of those sort of anchor baby agent before but never thought they were all that common here . (though maybe that's because it's more of a secret between rich people)


In realistic term though, for a 30 something guy today, he probably would have had a much much greater career opportunity on average if he was in China during his early 20s. (though that doesn't neccesarily mean he couldn't have the education in the states. )

   247. CrosbyBird Posted: January 04, 2013 at 04:17 AM (#4338725)
I don't think there is inherent anti-Jew sentiment within Muslims.

I strongly suspect that the majority of religious people don't bother investing energy in hating members of other religions, and that in this respect, Muslims are not much different from any other religious group. There are extremists in pretty much every religion that are anti-every-other-religion.
   248. Lassus Posted: January 04, 2013 at 08:24 AM (#4338745)
Thank you for your input. I will file it with my son's used diapers in the appropriate receptacle.

Nice try, I suppose, but you are most certainly no Max Reger.
   249. Lassus Posted: January 04, 2013 at 08:41 AM (#4338749)
This seems like another Trayvon/Zimmerman situation. Nobody on the left cares when blacks assault blacks or whites assault whites, etc., but as soon as there's a cross-racial or cross-ethnic component, it becomes a competition to see who can exhibit the most self-righteousness.

Yes, if only there had been more outcry during all these recent shootings about white people shooting white people. It's like it never even happened.

And if you comb the internet in America for the dark lefty wingnut corners, you may see news of a rape and murder in India. No one gives a crap about that either. Or Steubenville.
   250. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 04, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4338780)
"Anti-semitism" has always meant hatred of Jews.
   251. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 04, 2013 at 10:42 AM (#4338801)
"Anti-semitism" has always meant hatred of Jews


More recently, "anti-semitism" means "not blindly supporting the expansionary policies of the state of Israel without question" in some circles. The Nazis, who wanted to kill all people of Jewish descent, were anti-semites. People who want to end the settlement movement's slow devouring of all Palestinian lands is not anti-semitism. Peter Bienhart is not an anti-semite or a "self hating Jew."
   252. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 04, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4338813)
More recently, "anti-semitism" means "not blindly supporting the expansionary policies of the state of Israel without question" in some circles. The Nazis, who wanted to kill all people of Jewish descent, were anti-semites. People who want to end the settlement movement's slow devouring of all Palestinian lands is not anti-semitism. Peter Bienhart is not an anti-semite or a "self hating Jew."

Did I suggest otherwise? What's the point of this comment?
   253. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 04, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4338822)
Did I suggest otherwise? What's the point of this comment?


Your comment @250 is less relevant to any ongoing discussion of antisemitism because the usage and meaning of the term is changing over time.
   254. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 04, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4338843)
Your comment @250 is less relevant to any ongoing discussion of antisemitism because the usage and meaning of the term is changing over time.

Even if the word has evolved to include racism against Arabs (and I don't think that's the case), what does that have to do with your comment that opposition to Israel's policies is not an example of anti-semitism? I agree with you that it's not, but this seems like a random point to throw in.
   255. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 04, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4338854)
Even if the word has evolved to include racism against Arabs (and I don't think that's the case), what does that have to do with your comment that opposition to Israel's policies is not an example of anti-semitism? I agree with you that it's not, but this seems like a random point to throw in.


Because it is a popular use of the slur "anti-semite" today, to kowtow the conversation about Israel into acceptable, right wing directions. See the on-going character assassination of Chuck Hagel by the neocon right for a good example.
   256. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4338858)
Ugh, this thread was pretty decent for OT politics, for a while, but that didn't last. Back into the swamps.
   257. zonk Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4338889)
Oh, my god. Rape is totally legal now!


Well - first - the objections of the House GOP to the VAWA weren't solely on the tribal courts grounds... they also objected to the inclusion of same-sex instances and also a provision that included illegal immigrants who were victims to be able to obtain temporary visas.

Second - the real success of the VAWA wasn't necessarily federal prosecution of sexual assaults - it was the funding of a variety of victim services... training of local resources, including law enforcement, victim services (things like temporary housing and shelters), offender registries, anti-stalking programs, victim legal services (i.e., assistance with filing restraining orders and the like beyond/in addition/etc to mere prosecution).

Third, the supposed 'objections' were johnny come lately objections -- the VAWA has been reauthorized, with changes, time and again... the COST was the initial objection.

Besides... at the end of the day - and why, frankly, you're damn right the Dems ought to pound the 'war against women' with the VAWA lapse as yet another spear point --

The 112th House passed 213 pieces of legislation. They couldn't find the time to reconcile the VAWA -- but they DID find the time to pass 33 different bills repealing Obamacare.

Clearly, satiating TP ideological hissy fits was more important than passing/reauthorizing legislation that nearly everyone seems to agree has done a lot of good.
   258. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4338895)
Second - the real success of the VAWA wasn't necessarily federal prosecution of sexual assaults - it was the funding of a variety of victim services... training of local resources, including law enforcement, victim services (things like temporary housing and shelters), offender registries, anti-stalking programs, victim legal services (i.e., assistance with filing restraining orders and the like beyond/in addition/etc to mere prosecution).

I have no idea whether the VAWA is good, bad or indifferent legislation.

My question is, aside from the issue with the Indian Nations, why is this a Federal matter? Routine law enforcement of things like murder, rape, assault, burglary belong, etc., and ancillary programs, belongs to state and local jurisdiction.
   259. zonk Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4338914)
Second - the real success of the VAWA wasn't necessarily federal prosecution of sexual assaults - it was the funding of a variety of victim services... training of local resources, including law enforcement, victim services (things like temporary housing and shelters), offender registries, anti-stalking programs, victim legal services (i.e., assistance with filing restraining orders and the like beyond/in addition/etc to mere prosecution).

I have no idea whether the VAWA is good, bad or indifferent legislation.

My question is, aside from the issue with the Indian Nations, why is this a Federal matter? Routine law enforcement of things like murder, rape, assault, burglary belong, etc., and ancillary programs, belongs to state and local jurisdiction.


Because of those victim services -- and the federal funding of them... what it did is make a lot of things available to victims of assault that weren't if you crossed certain imaginary lines. Likewise - a lot of the registry and anti-stalking stuff also made for better cross-jurisdiction coordination.

If Some County Texas didn't want to bother with dealing registering a rapist, but Some Other County Texas (or Illinois did, but Iowa didn't) -- or apply the same to some of the various victim services, etc.... well -- the federal component made more victim services and victim protections available, rather than a patchwork quilt of what was available to you in location A vs location B.

I mean... I hope we're not extending the silly 'State's Rights' nonsense to include the amount of suffering a victim of sexual assault is entitled to, or, the amount/weight of force of law should have on a perpetrator of such crimes.
   260. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4338916)
Can't they just transfer the rapists to another reservation?
   261. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4338922)
"Anti-semitism" has always meant hatred of Jews.
To be more precise, the word was explicitly coined to mean hatred of Jews. It was invented by a 19th century German named Wilhelm Marr who was trying to distinguish the "modern" scientific racial anti-Judaism of his era from the earlier medieval religious anti-Judaism. (In other words, Jews weren't bad because of what they believed; they were bad because of their genetic characteristics.)


More recently, "anti-semitism" means "not blindly supporting the expansionary policies of the state of Israel without question" in some circles. The Nazis, who wanted to kill all people of Jewish descent, were anti-semites. People who want to end the settlement movement's slow devouring of all Palestinian lands is not anti-semitism. Peter Bienhart is not an anti-semite or a "self hating Jew."
Actually, "anti-semitism means not blindly supporting Israel" is pretty much Nation talking points once again. It's a way to preemptively deflect criticism of one's irrational anti-Israel views. Nobody actually accuses people who don't blindly support the imaginary expansionary policies of the state of Israel of anti-semitism. Only when there's something a lot more.
   262. zonk Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4338948)
   263. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4338954)
I mean... I hope we're not extending the silly 'State's Rights' nonsense to include the amount of suffering a victim of sexual assault is entitled to, or, the amount/weight of force of law should have on a perpetrator of such crimes.
Yes, if federalism means anything nothing, it's that each state must define and punish each crime in exactly the same way, and must choose to spend taxpayer money in exactly the same way.
   264. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4338956)
Can't they just transfer the rapists to another reservation?
C'mon, man, this isn't the Catholic Church we're talking about.
   265. zonk Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:00 PM (#4338960)
Yes, if federalism means anything nothing, it's that each state must define and punish each crime in exactly the same way, and must choose to spend taxpayer money in exactly the same way.


Heh... so Libertariatopia plans to be a generation and done nation, based on its 90/10 male-to-female population ration.

Good to know!
   266. Lassus Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4338972)
Ugh, this thread was pretty decent for OT politics, for a while, but that didn't last. Back into the swamps.

Swamps? You'll have to deal with Hutcheson.
   267. AuntBea Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4338980)
imaginary expansionary policies of the state of Israel


So I guess Likud minister-to-be Elkin's call for annexation of Area C: ("We must now begin to take proactive steps to improve our situation, and begin to apply sovereignty, or aspects thereof, on whatever areas we can at any given moment." "...“take what we can now, and discuss the rest later.”) is imaginary as well? This was just 2 days ago. So soon we forget!

Israel will just play the stalling game with intellectually bankrupt arguments the same as the ones David has been using above (truly no original thought in those posts) until the facts on the ground make a Palestinian state truly impossible. Personally I believe they will succeed, even if it takes a war to drive a significant portion of the population out.

Every US citizen should be strongly questioning are military and monetary support of Israel at this point.
   268. Kurt Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4338987)
Heh... so Libertariatopia plans to be a generation and done nation, based on its 90/10 male-to-female population ration.

Good to know!


It's one thing to say that no country, state, county, or town should ever have anything other than zonk-approved legislation dealing with sexual assault, but I have a hard time believing that no such society has ever existed for more than a generation or with anything other than a 90-10 m-f ratio.
   269. BrianBrianson Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4338997)
The facts on the ground have already made a Palestinian state impossible. Casting it as Israel vs. Palestine does make people side with Palestine mostly because they love an underdog; but there's no reason to believe a fairer casting isn't Israel vs. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen - and they few are nonchalent because it's unbalanced the other way.

Israel is far from a perfect country in it's behavior (but who is? Iceland?), but if I were in their position I couldn't see myself packing up and being driven into the sea. People who think that's what they should do - I just can't understand them. Of course they're going to stall until a viable option for peace is presented; probably that means until nobody cares anymore. They're not wizards, they can't choose peace like they're ordering from a menu.
   270. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4338999)

Because of those victim services -- and the federal funding of them... what it did is make a lot of things available to victims of assault that weren't if you crossed certain imaginary lines. Likewise - a lot of the registry and anti-stalking stuff also made for better cross-jurisdiction coordination.

If Some County Texas didn't want to bother with dealing registering a rapist, but Some Other County Texas (or Illinois did, but Iowa didn't) -- or apply the same to some of the various victim services, etc.... well -- the federal component made more victim services and victim protections available, rather than a patchwork quilt of what was available to you in location A vs location B.

I mean... I hope we're not extending the silly 'State's Rights' nonsense to include the amount of suffering a victim of sexual assault is entitled to, or, the amount/weight of force of law should have on a perpetrator of such crimes.


A key concept of any sane vision of a just society is subsidiarity. Tasks and problems should be handled by the smallest unit of society that is capable of handling it.

Centralized control, where it is not necessary, is both inefficient, and injust. It deprives individuals, families, towns, counties, states, etc., of liberty for no good purpose.
   271. Delorians Posted: January 04, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4339013)
A key concept of any sane vision of a just society is subsidiarity. Tasks and problems should be handled by the smallest unit of society that is capable of handling it.

Centralized control, where it is not necessary, is both inefficient, and injust. It deprives individuals, families, towns, counties, states, etc., of liberty for no good purpose.

Amen.

If Some County in Texas didn't want to bother with dealing registering a rapist, but Some Other County in Texas did (or Illinois did, but Iowa didn't)

I'm not understanding the issue here. If the crime occurs in Illinois, it should be dealt with by Illinois, not Iowa. If it occurs in one Texas county, it should be prosecuted by that county, not an adjacent county.
   272. SteveF Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4339051)
Well - first - the objections of the House GOP to the VAWA weren't solely on the tribal courts grounds... they also objected to the inclusion of same-sex instances and also a provision that included illegal immigrants who were victims to be able to obtain temporary visas.


Third, the supposed 'objections' were johnny come lately objections -- the VAWA has been reauthorized, with changes, time and again... the COST was the initial objection.


This was always my interpretation. The objections to the Senate amendments to the bill were more a 'war' (as much as I dislike using that term given what real war is like) on homosexuals, illegal immigrants, and federal spending than a 'war on women.'

Though there are legitimate problems with Tribal courts, on balance the bill probably should have been passed (and would have passed had it been allowed to reach the floor of the House).
   273. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4339052)
A key concept of any sane vision of a just society is subsidiarity. Tasks and problems should be handled by the smallest unit of society that is capable of handling it.


An even more fundamental concept is coherence. For a society to truly be a society it should have a shared vision, shared values, and have those things represented throughout the society - else it is not truly a society, it is several societies in parallel. And these things evolve as societies evolve, anti-slavery and acceptance of interracial marriage are clearly examples of values that have become shared across the US, and to a large degree through the mechanism of the central authority.

One such shared value in America is that Women should not fear assault and should know if such an assault occurs as much as possible justice will be done and a redress will be done (treatment is one such example).

Currently in the US this is not the case. Since it is not the case it is incumbent on the central authorities to make this happen to the best of their abilities, and thus the changes to the VAWA.

There seem to be three criticisms of VAMA.

1) Not a Federal issue. I address this above.*
2) This is not a problem. I think a look at the facts shows it pretty clearly is a problem.
3) VAWA is the wrong solution to the problem. So I would ask what is a better solution? And saying "enforce the current laws" is clearly not the right solution because it is not happening now under the current laws (and with the expiration of VAWA things got worse, not better). So please explain how you plan to enable enforcement of the current laws or what new laws you think are appropriate.

As a side note: You may not like the "War on Women" framing. You may think it unfair. But it exists and for whatever reason women overwhelmingly vote for Team Blue. Allowing this sort of thing to happen is (I think) a policy problem, but it is clearly a political messaging problem as it feed the War on Women framing and at the least prevents or hinders GOP counter messaging.

* EDIT: Well the libertarians will clearly not think so, but that is a much larger argument about how to structure a society, and that is an argument they have lost in the real world and will continue to do so, but they persist arguing (which is good and healthy and their right, btw), so their objection is noted.
   274. Mefisto Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4339055)
A key concept of any sane vision of a just society is subsidiarity. Tasks and problems should be handled by the smallest unit of society that is capable of handling it.


I guess Madison wasn't sane, then. His whole argument in Federalist 10 can be summed up in the phrase "expand the sphere". As he showed, the better decisions will always be made by a wider electorate.
   275. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4339059)
An even more fundamental concept is coherence. For a society to truly be a society it should have a shared vision, shared values, and have those things represented throughout the society - else it is not truly a society, it is several societies in parallel. And these things evolve as societies evolve, anti-slavery and acceptance of interracial marriage are clearly examples of values that have become shared across the US, and to a large degree through the mechanism of the central authority.

This is a recipe for disaster in an increasingly diverse society. Newsflash: there is no "shared vision" of what America should be.

The best way to manage our increasing differences is to allow more local autonomy and diversity, not less.
   276. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4339063)
I guess Madison wasn't sane, then. His whole argument in Federalist 10 can be summed up in the phrase "expand the sphere". As he showed, the better decisions will always be made by a wider electorate.

The permissible scope of government in his time and view was so small, he might have been right then.

But now? After the experience of the 20th century? It is clear to me that centralized power is MUCH more likely to commit serious violations of rights, and make decisions that are horrible for some parts of the population.

Look at Europe and the economic disasters in Greece. You removed local ability to respond to currency and competitive pressures, and you drive lots of people into poverty b/c of the wishes of the "wider electorate". Per capita GDP is down 25% b/c the "wider electorate" of banks and eurocrats won't let the Greeks devalue/default.
   277. zenbitz Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:53 PM (#4339082)
I agree with that. But a lot of the putative leadership, the Islamists and radicals, wants Israel destroyed (or at least finds that position politically useful). And they have powerful support from Islamists across the Sunni world, and also Iran.


The only reason this is not true in the reverse, is that since the Israeli government has all the goodies, they have no real reason to need to exterminate the Palistinians.


Since a democracy would be a death (or exile) sentence for Israeli Jews, can you blame them?


It wasn't for the White South Africans when Aparteid ended, was it?
   278. spike Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4339083)
Or Steubenville.

I just heard/read about that today. Unbelievable.
   279. BrianBrianson Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4339085)
   280. spike Posted: January 04, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4339086)
It wasn't for the White South Africans when Aparteid ended, was it?

as much as I agree with this, you can't count on there being a Nelson Mandela around every time. I can't imagine the South African transition ending well without him.
   281. zonk Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4339090)
Heh... so Libertariatopia plans to be a generation and done nation, based on its 90/10 male-to-female population ration.

Good to know!

It's one thing to say that no country, state, county, or town should ever have anything other than zonk-approved legislation dealing with sexual assault, but I have a hard time believing that no such society has ever existed for more than a generation or with anything other than a 90-10 m-f ratio.


I always forget that page 3 of the OTP is deigned to be a snark and hyperbole free zone....


A key concept of any sane vision of a just society is subsidiarity. Tasks and problems should be handled by the smallest unit of society that is capable of handling it.

Centralized control, where it is not necessary, is both inefficient, and injust. It deprives individuals, families, towns, counties, states, etc., of liberty for no good purpose.


The VAWA wasn't sending victims to DC for safe housing --

It was essentially funding a federal level certain services that localities either didn't want to or couldn't pay for -- to say nothing of the coordination that's always a problem when one locality cares about say... helping a victim of assault follow-up with something like how to file for a restraining order, then enforce it - while another doesn't.

I'm not understanding the issue here. If the crime occurs in Illinois, it should be dealt with by Illinois, not Iowa. If it occurs in one Texas county, it should be prosecuted by that county, not an adjacent county.


Absolutely - and except for edge cases, it's not as if the VAWA was federalizing prosecution of rapists or perpetrators of sexual assault... What it was doing is:

1) Providing for some uniformity of training and support services

2) Funding of services for victims

3) Providing the umbrella of coordination for certain things like registries and the like that the individual localities weren't.

Look...

Maybe the problem here is that the law itself is somewhat misnamed -- i.e., that it's a mostly a matter of applying the federal prosecutorial hammer to rapists and assaulters.... In reality, that's not what it does -- in reality, what it does (or now - DID, since it no longer exists) -- is to mainly standardize certain preventive measures and services, standardize and provide for a whole host of aftermath services to victims, and fund it all.

   282. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4339092)
This is a recipe for disaster in an increasingly diverse society. Newsflash: there is no "shared vision" of what America should be.


The mistake you make here is the unstated assumption that somehow local authority does a better job of accommodating diversity than a central authority does. Based on US history over the past 200 years your assumption is clearly and unambiguously wrong.

And there is a shared vision. It begins with the Declaration of Independence, continues in the Constitution and lives on today. There is not a monolithic laundry list of things that are fixed for all eternity, but there are shared values. I even gave a few examples in Slavery and Interracial Marriage. And when I say shared I am not suggesting 100% compliance, because clearly you can find someone who believes any damn fool thing you can think of.
   283. BrianBrianson Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4339093)
It is clear to me that centralized power is MUCH more likely to commit serious violations of rights, and make decisions that are horrible for some parts of the population.


This is probably the daftest thing that's been said in this thread. Centralized power is much less likely to commit serious violation of rights. When it does, however, the problem is much larger in scale. When you're running the Pitcairn islands as your personal fief, there's only four dozen people for you to abuse. But it's far more common.
   284. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4339095)
The mistake you make here is the unstated assumption that somehow local authority does a better job of accommodating diversity than a central authority does. Based on US history over the past 200 years your assumption is clearly and unambiguously wrong.

I don't say they do. But you can move to get away from a repressive local authority.

I've never heard of a local gov't committing genocide.
   285. zonk Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4339100)

I don't say they do. But you can move to get away from a repressive local authority.


Not if you can't afford to move....
   286. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4339101)
Haha. I know you don't believe this, David.


I've slowly come to the opinion that he does in fact believe the counterfactual crap he spews, reality refuses to match his ideology so he tries to bend reality.

His view of the creation of Israel is as flawed (in the opposite direction) as the Arab view that Israel was a wholly western creation.

Yes there were many Jews in what is today Israel, and about 100,000 additional ones managed to make it there in the late 30s- mid 40s (not that you could blame them)- but by 1947 the Arabs still outnumbered the Jews by 2:1 in the Palestine Mandate area- under the UN Plan the Jewish sate would get some 56% of the land - land on which they had a roughly 55-45% majority, on the land going to the Arabs the Arabs had a 95-5% majority- so yes even under the UN plan it was jerrymandered to be as favorable to the Jews as possible

The Jews declared an independent state once the Brits left, and won the subsequent war. Then in 1948-50 some 700,000 Jews immigrated to the new state of Israel, while about 600,000 Arabs left (left the territory of what became the State of Israel)- that permanently altered the demographic balance of the "Jewish" state as all Jewish immigrants in became citizens and all Arabs who left were barred from returning.


   287. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4339104)
A key concept of any sane vision of a just society is subsidiarity. Tasks and problems should be handled by the smallest unit of society that is capable of handling it.


I think the primary reason behind the above thought should be efficiency. It is often much more efficient to have those nearest a problem in charge of a solution (so long as they are in fact following societies shared vision, of course). When, as is the case with the VAWA issue, the problem is NOT being handled locally, when it is not more efficient to have the local resources handle the problem, then you need a more central authority.

There is no magic "push everything down the ladder of authority" that solves every problem. It would be nice if this were the case but it isn't.
   288. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4339105)
Not if you can't afford to move....

Everyone can afford to move when facing real repression.

No Ukranian Kulaks or Polish Jews ever said, "gee I'd like to escape certain death but I just can't afford it". They were not allowed to emigrate.
   289. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4339107)

There is no magic "push everything down the ladder of authority" that solves every problem. It would be nice if this were the case but it isn't.


No, but it distributes power more broadly, and limits the potential for abuse by any one bad actor.
   290. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4339110)
I don't say they do. But you can move to get away from a repressive local authority.


So your answer to the issue of slavery or interracial marriage would have been to advise those affected to move to greener pastures? Really? And even if it were a solution for some issues (assuming one of our shared values happens to be "love it or move") it is a terrible solution for this issue in particular.

"Sorry rape victim, you should move, or better yet you should have moved before being raped; and since you could have moved before being raped I don't think this issue calls for a centralized system of redress."
   291. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4339115)
So your answer to the issue of slavery or interracial marriage would have been to advise those affected to move to greener pastures? Really? And even if it were a solution for some issues (assuming one of our shared values happens to be "love it or move") it is a terrible solution for this issue in particular.

"Sorry rape victim, you should move, or better yet you should have moved before being raped; and since you could have moved before being raped I don't think this issue calls for a centralized system of redress."


It certainly doesn't work for every issue; I said you push power down when the smaller entities can handle it. Each county can't maintain a navy, or a foreign trade policy.

The answer in this case is for the states and counties to enforce the laws. If they refuse to enforce their own laws, then I can see a civil rights lawsuit against the localities that refuse. That doesn't mean you need to take authority away from all the localities that enforce their laws.

Some families neglect their children; we respond by prosecuting those people. We don't respond by Federalizing child care, although I wouldn't put that past some people.

In this case, the issue seems to be the Feds not prosecuting rapes on Indian Reservations. I fail to see how giving the Feds more power helps a situation caused by their failure to act.
   292. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4339118)
No, but it distributes power more broadly, and limits the potential for abuse by any one bad actor.


It ensures there will be many bad actors, and many victims without redress as you have deprived them of central unbiased authority. For an example see the south before and during the Civil Rights movement.
   293. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4339121)
The answer in this case is for the states and counties to enforce the laws. If they refuse to enforce their own laws, then I can see a civil rights lawsuit against the localities that refuse. That doesn't mean you need to take authority away from all the localities than enforce their laws.

In this case, the issue seems to be the Feds not prosecuting rapes on Indian Reservations. I fail to see how giving the Feds more power helps a situation caused by their failure to act.


"That doesn't mean you need to take authority away from all the localities than enforce their laws." This is not what is happening under VAWA.

"In this case, the issue seems to be the Feds not prosecuting rapes on Indian Reservations." This is an incorrect reading of the problem.

The two misunderstandings above explain some of your dislike of the bill.
   294. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4339126)
Regarding the original UN partition plan- I really don't see how it was viable long term even if accepted by both sides, something was going to have to give.

From Israel's POV, bringing in as many Jewish immigrants as quickly as possible while expelling as many non-Jews as possible(one way or the other), was quite likely absolutely necessary in order to create a viable state.

The real intractable trouble was created after 1967 when they took over large Arab populations- demographically you could not incorporate that many non-Jews into Israel- and you could no longer simply expel them - it was no longer diplomatically/politically feasible- so what should have been done with those territories? Gaza/West bank/E. Jerusalem/Sinai?

used as bargaining chips of course- and they were, but they also began settling Jews in those regions, smack dab in the middle of Arab populations- over the objections not just of the residents but of the UN (though of course the US could be counted n vetoing any real action)

the settlements were connected to Israel "proper" by roads, the settlements and roads were patrolled and guarded by the Israeli military, which rendered the Israeli military a constant and disruptive influence on everyday Palestinians and their lives-
founding and expanding the settlements was an act of suicidal insanity- it's been over 60 years since Israel became an independent state, that's a long time, the Israel/Palestinian dispute *could* have been resolved by now if not for the settlement policies- its like a wound that can never heal because the settlements/settlers are constantly picking at the scab.

   295. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4339127)
The two misunderstandings above explain some of your dislike of the bill.

I have no pinion of the bill, haven't studied it. I dislike Federalizing non-Federal issues on principal.

The burden should be that the states collectively prove they can't solve an issue, before the Feds take over, not simply that some states are doing a bad job.
   296. Mefisto Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4339129)
But now? After the experience of the 20th century? It is clear to me that centralized power is MUCH more likely to commit serious violations of rights, and make decisions that are horrible for some parts of the population.


Bitter Mouse has made most of the points I'd make. I'll just add this. Madison was talking about republican government. Yes, centralized authority under an evil dictator is bound to be worse than decentralized authority. In the opposite way, I suppose, centralized authority under a philosopher king might be ideal (if you're Plato).

But in republics, the evidence is unambiguous that expanding the electorate makes for better decisions.
   297. SteveF Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4339133)
But in republics, the evidence is unambiguous that expanding the electorate makes for better decisions.


The same case, however, can be made for decentralized policy -- the old 'states as a laboratory for democracy' idea. (More generally, I mean. I'm not sure it applies in the case of the VAWA since the lack of funding means there's no experimenting with solutions going on at all.)
   298. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4339136)
founding and expanding the settlements was an act of suicidal insanity- it's been over 60 years since Israel became an independent state, that's a long time, the Israel/Palestinian dispute *could* have been resolved by now if not for the settlement policies- its like a wound that can never heal because the settlements/settlers are constantly picking at the scab.

How is it suicidal? The status quo works pretty well for Israel. They have a vibrant, rich economy, and face no credible military threat, except for the potential of madmen with the bomb in Iran. Israel can keep going on this way for a long time. Their biggest threat, ironically, is probably the very high birth-rate among the ultra-orthodox, who contribute almost nothing to the economy, and generally refuse to serve in the military.

The Arab world may not have been irredeemably anti-Semitic in 1948, but it is now. Jews have been driven out of virtually every Arab and Muslim country where they had any presence. And now, those countries are moving towards driving out the indigenous Christians.

If I were an Israeli, I'd have zero confidence that granting the Palestinians a state would reduce anyone's desire to take back the whole of Israel.
   299. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4339138)
Bitter Mouse has made most of the points I'd make. I'll just add this. Madison was talking about republican government. Yes, centralized authority under an evil dictator is bound to be worse than decentralized authority. In the opposite way, I suppose, centralized authority under a philosopher king might be ideal (if you're Plato).

But in republics, the evidence is unambiguous that expanding the electorate makes for better decisions.


Many dictatorships come from non-dictatorships. If a Hitler became President in the 1800 US, his ability to do harm was effectively zero. He couldn't do anything. In a highly centralized modern state, he could wreak havoc.
   300. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 04, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4339150)
So snapper's objection to VAWA is based on the dangers of centralized power, as evidenced by 20th century genocides... which means providing support services to victims of sexual assault would lead us down a slippery slope... but there are cases where centralized power is necessary, such as armed forces.

Personally, I'm a bit more worried about the potential for genocide being committed by the armed forces than by an agency devoted to providing support for victims of sexual assault, but YMMV.

Page 3 of 29 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
tshipman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(638 - 9:12pm, Nov 28)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5121 - 9:08pm, Nov 28)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogBaseball's most underrated Hall of Fame candidates. | SportsonEarth.com : Anthony Castrovince Article
(30 - 9:06pm, Nov 28)
Last: Tom Ryan

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1145 - 8:48pm, Nov 28)
Last: If on a winter's night a baserunner

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(49 - 8:33pm, Nov 28)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1192 - 8:17pm, Nov 28)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(29 - 7:17pm, Nov 28)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogBaseball’s Teen-Age Twitter Reporters - The New Yorker
(11 - 7:14pm, Nov 28)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(46 - 7:10pm, Nov 28)
Last: JJ1986

Newsblog[Cricketer NOT baseball player] Phil Hughes dies after “pitch” to the head
(18 - 5:31pm, Nov 28)
Last: Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-28-2014
(9 - 5:16pm, Nov 28)
Last: Batman

NewsblogJon Lester has plenty of options in addition to Red Sox - Sports - The Boston Globe
(13 - 4:54pm, Nov 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogMarlins seek lefty balance in lineup, on mound | MLB.com
(3 - 4:39pm, Nov 28)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogNotable Players Available In The Rule 5 Draft - BaseballAmerica.com
(11 - 2:54pm, Nov 28)
Last: KJOK

Hall of MeritBrian Giles
(57 - 2:42pm, Nov 28)
Last: Bleed the Freak

Page rendered in 0.8873 seconds
52 querie(s) executed