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

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

OTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game

As Time magazine recently reported, Republicans, frustrated by their 22-0 loss in last year’s game, sought a new coach to shake things up on the field this year. Some members even appealed to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to fire the coach, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). But Boehner said he wasn’t powerful enough to control the baseball diamond, and Barton refused to walk away after spending 28 years with the game. Instead, he brought on Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), a former professional baseball player and coach at Texas Christian University, to coach while he stayed on as the team’s manager.

In the face of Wednesday’s loss, according to The Washington Post, Republicans are once again asking Boehner to remove Barton from the game. But with multiple pitchers giving up walk after walk, it seems that what the Republicans really need is a pitcher who can better match Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), who previously pitched on Morehouse College’s varsity baseball team.

Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 07:53 AM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, winning is fun

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 40 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 38 39 40 41 > 
   3901. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4761779)
I'll admit it's over the top. But, there has to be some generally accepted principles on which to judge a citizenship structure as just or unjust. Otherwise, a majority can always deny citizenship to a minority. And, even though genocide is not an inevitable outcome, the step of de-legitimizing a minority's right to be citizens, is certainly on the path to seizing their property, expelling them, and possibly murdering them.


Well sure and we can discuss the just ways of defining citizenship (in fact I think Europe generally has some nasty laws around this), but I was just answering the question "how do you know who an Algerian is?" And the only answer that makes sense is to see how Algeria defines it - at least to start with.
   3902. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4761782)
And the only answer that makes sense is to see how Algeria defines it - at least to start with.

And you keep saying this and you keep missing the straightforward fact that "Algeria" must first be defined before "Algeria" can define "Algerians." "Algerians" can't exist without "Algeria."

And then, even after that, defining "Algeria" a certain way wouldn't give a majority race/ethnicity the right to blow up and drive out another race/ethnicity.

Not to mention that defining "Algeria" to mean only a certain race(s) when there are other race(s) who live there or have a stake in the nation is racist.

So, yeah, that's a lot of conundrums for the modern liberal to sift through. Which means, if past is prologue, he'll put his head in the sand and pretend.
   3903. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4761783)
Engineers don't innovate. Scientists innovate. Engineers follow directions.

That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read here -- which, given the competition, is saying a lot. I will assume that it was intended as a joke.


It may actually be dumber than the ten dogs of Tommy Lasorda
   3904. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4761788)
I will be glad when August starts so the pagination stops being broken.
   3905. Mefisto Posted: July 31, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4761799)
I thought the length of the thread was what caused the pagination problems. Is that wrong?
   3906. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4761800)
3847. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 01:32 PM (#4761520)

All of your posts have the same flaw, which is: you ignore finite resources. If resources were infinite, everyone is in agreement that everyone should be educated to the hilt.

Nonsense. I have a hard floor of educational opportunity that must be provided to every student - primary and secondary education, consistent with that person becoming a fully functioning member of society with options available to them, including college, manual labor or whatever. That no more takes infinite resources than flying to the moon took infinite resources.

I would like more resources that is currently allocated, because people are valuable and investing in them makes sense.

You seem to be arguing with yourself (again). It's borderline idiotic to claim a goal of providing educational opportunity to "every student" so that they become "a fully functioning member of society with options available to them" when we know damn well that the cohort of students currently consuming a massively disproportionate amount of our educational resources — i.e., those in special ed — will never come close to being "fully functioning member[s] of society."

***
You are being very sophomoric. Andy doesn't have to define it, the Algerians did that. And very well. Are you suggesting that the Algerians didn't know who was Algerian and who was French? Of course they did and do. Every nation is able to determine with a high degree of confidence who their citizens are. So what point are you desperately and poorly trying to make?

This is a funny claim coming from someone who believes race is merely a social construct. But anyway, if the above is true, why do liberals oppose things like E-Verify? If the U.S. had implemented that a decade ago, our illegal immigration problem would be only a fraction of what it is today.

EDIT: I hadn't seen your #3887 when I posted the above. What a shocker that you're not as fanatical when it comes to the U.S. defining and identifying its citizens. You're the absolute poster boy for the American left being all whims and no principles.
   3907. just plain joe Posted: July 31, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4761819)
Algeria would have been far better off having been made a province of the French metropole, in much the way of Alaska and Hawaii -- each of which is far further away geographically from Washington than Algeria is from Paris.


From 1848 until independence Algeria was part of metropolitan France, ie it was not a colony. The pied noirs (if not the indigenous Algerians) considered themselves to be French, as indeed they were, as much as one living in Paris or Marseille. This was one of the reasons that the French government resisted Algerian independence so strongly and for so long, many in France viewed this as surrendering an integral part of the country. I don't know enough about Algerian history to know for sure if the unassimilated Algerians were treated worse than were the Algerians of European descent; I suspect that they were which was likely part of their discontent.
   3908. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4761828)
You seem to be arguing with yourself (again). It's borderline idiotic to claim a goal of providing educational opportunity to "every student" so that they become "a fully functioning member of society with options available to them" when we know damn well that the cohort of students currently consuming a massively disproportionate amount of our educational resources — i.e., those in special ed — will never come close to being "fully functioning member[s] of society."


Wherein JoeK again shows his flawed understanding of English. You realize what a goal is, right? "the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result."

That should be the goal of education. That doesn't mean you expect to reach it, but it is still the goal. It is what you try. Which is way better than devising a test and then those who fail get relegated to secondary status, which some here wold prefer.

This is a funny claim coming from someone who believes race is merely a social construct. But anyway, if the above is true, why do liberals oppose things like E-Verify? If the U.S. had implemented that a decade ago, our illegal immigration problem would be only a fraction of what it is today.


Race is primarily a cultural construct, though it does have some genetic components. But what does that have to do with determining nationality? Not much as it turns out.

And e-verify, seriously? What on Earth does a specific policy proposal (versus other specific policy proposals) have to do with the general principle that people want their national government to share their goals, background and so on or with the principle that nations get to determine their own rules for citizenship?
   3909. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:02 PM (#4761832)
From 1848 until independence Algeria was part of metropolitan France, ie it was not a colony.

Part of it was. Not really the interior.
   3910. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4761835)
I don't know enough about Algerian history to know for sure if the unassimilated Algerians were treated worse than were the Algerians of European descent; I suspect that they were which was likely part of their discontent.


I am not exactly an expert on the issue either, but over the past 100 years there has been a strong drive for smaller nations which are largely self governed and joined to other nations by treaty, as opposed to giant Empires containing many smaller groups within them. The Algerians wanting to be separate from France cold easily be part of that general drive. Just look at a map of nations from 1914 compared to a map of nations today - it is not race that has driven all those new nations.
   3911. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4761846)
Just look at a map of nations from 1914 compared to a map of nations today - it is not race that has driven all those new nations.

The vast majority of the new nations are more racially/ethnically pure offshoots of formerly poly-ethnic polities. Race/ethnicity has been, far and away, the primary preciptator of these new nations.
   3912. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4761848)
I am not exactly an expert on the issue either, but over the past 100 years there has been a strong drive for smaller nations which are largely self governed and joined to other nations by treaty, as opposed to giant Empires containing many smaller groups within them. The Algerians wanting to be separate from France cold easily be part of that general drive. Just look at a map of nations from 1914 compared to a map of nations today - it is not race that has driven all those new nations.

Nationalism in the 19th and 20th c. had a huge racial aspect, from German and Italian unification all the way down.
   3913. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4761849)
Today's polling news - Obama Approval In Ohio Nears All-Time Low Anywhere:

Drink!

I wouldn't think that Team Blue members would be the ones toasting such bad news in an important swing state, but let me join in - drinks all around!
   3914. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4761855)
I thought the length of the thread was what caused the pagination problems. Is that wrong?


Pagination issues are caused by deleted posts. For whatever reason, the database does not handle deleted posts very well, so the counter on the sidebar shows the number of posts, while the individual pages don't adjust. So if there are posts 1-10, and post 5 gets deleted, the sidebar will show 9 posts, but the thread does not adjust posts down to compensate for the deleted posts.

This issue was probably (but not certainly!) caused by Kevin's re-banning, as all Publius Cloaca posts were removed from the database at the time of his banning.

Edit: the joke was intentional (if poor)
   3915. The Good Face Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4761862)
Wherein JoeK again shows his flawed understanding of English. You realize what a goal is, right? "the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result."

That should be the goal of education. That doesn't mean you expect to reach it, but it is still the goal. It is what you try. Which is way better than devising a test and then those who fail get relegated to secondary status, which some here wold prefer.


Goals must be reasonably attainable. If you're setting goals that are not reasonably attainable, you're just wasting time and resources.
   3916. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4761863)
Wherein JoeK again shows his flawed understanding of English. You realize what a goal is, right? "the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result."

That should be the goal of education. That doesn't mean you expect to reach it, but it is still the goal. It is what you try. Which is way better than devising a test and then those who fail get relegated to secondary status, which some here wold prefer.

Wherein Bitter Mouse again shows that he doesn't have a nickel's worth of common sense.

The idea that it should be the "goal" of government schools to turn severely mentally disabled people into "fully functioning members of society" is more inane than saying it should be the goal of the local YMCA to turn 65-year-old women into fireballing relief pitchers.

A goal with zero basis in reality isn't a goal — it's a fantasy.

Race is primarily a cultural construct, though it does have some genetic components. But what does that have to do with determining nationality? Not much as it turns out.

Huh? It's a hell of a lot easier to identify people by race than by nationality. Only a fool would claim otherwise.

And e-verify, seriously? What on Earth does a specific policy proposal (versus other specific policy proposals) have to do with the general principle that people want their national government to share their goals, background and so on or with the principle that nations get to determine their own rules for citizenship?

You really need this explained? If it's so easy to define and identify a country's citizens, then a system like E-Verify is a no-brainer. It's a first line of defense against the same type of problems from which you seem to believe Algeria suffered.
   3917. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4761867)
Following up a little, the Philly PD seem to have managed to catch the two car jackers who killed those kids last week, despite the Associated Press and their attempts to get them out of country.
   3918. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4761918)
The vast majority of the new nations are more racially/ethnically pure offshoots of formerly poly-ethnic polities. Race/ethnicity has been, far and away, the primary preciptator of these new nations.


Nice conflation of race and ethnicity.

Ethnicity: the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.


Ethnicity is what drives the splits. Iraq is splitting into three nations, not because there are three races there, but because there are three primary ethnic groups, and each of those three major groups believes (rightly or wrongly) that it cannot trust the other groups to participate in the governing of their group.

Are are you saying that they are different races? Please feel free to number and name the races, so we can map them onto the world map and identify how they have driven the changes in the map from 1914 until today.
   3919. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4761922)
Ethnicity is what drives the splits. Iraq is splitting into three nations, not because there are three races there, but because there are three primary ethnic groups, and each of those three major groups believes (rightly or wrongly) that it cannot trust the other groups to participate in the governing of their group.

Nope. The Sunni and Shiite Arabs are roughly the same ethnically. Only the Kurds are a different ethnic group.
   3920. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4761924)
Are are you saying that they are different races? Please feel free to number and name the races, so we can map them onto the world map and identify how they have driven the changes in the map from 1914 until today.

You really don't have much of a clue, do you?
   3921. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4761936)
Wherein Bitter Mouse again shows that he doesn't have a nickel's worth of common sense.

The idea that it should be the "goal" of government schools to turn severely mentally disabled people into "fully functioning members of society" is more inane than saying it should be the goal of the local YMCA to turn 65-year-old women into fireballing relief pitchers.

A goal with zero basis in reality isn't a goal — it's a fantasy.


Ah yes, now JoeK feels the need to misstate my position. Nice straw man. The proposal I was arguing against was not about severely mentally disabled people and everyone knows it. You really have no shame do you?

In our current schooling we mainstream where possible. I think most public schools do a pretty good job of it. Some of those students cost more. To use examples from my family the deaf and those on the autistic spectrum now get mainstreamed in a way they never did before. I think this is a great practice and results in those mainstreamed students in being able to participate in society much more fully than before, and often times they do become fully functioning members of society.

I have never suggested every single student will do so, but it is still the correct goal to try. You should not give a test and relegate the bottom 20% (or whatever figure was used up thread) to substandard education. That is crazy, miserly, and stupid.

As FDR said:
Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt
   3922. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4761938)
Nope. The Sunni and Shiite Arabs are roughly the same ethnically. Only the Kurds are a different ethnic group.


They share a different cultural grouping - their religion. They are the same racially, of course. Religion is part of culture.
   3923. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4761944)
They share a different cultural grouping - their religion. They are the same racially, of course. Religion is part of culture.

That's not how you usually define ethnicity. I've never heard Catholic and Lutheran Germans referred to as separate ethnic groups.
   3924. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4761952)
You really need this explained? If it's so easy to define and identify a country's citizens, then a system like E-Verify is a no-brainer. It's a first line of defense against the same type of problems from which you seem to believe Algeria suffered.


You are such an idiot.

Where did I say it was easy to identify a countries citizens? (I didn't. I said when trying to answer the question of who is an Algerian you start by asking Algerians, since they get to decide the criteria)

Where do I say there was a "type of problems from which you seem to believe Algeria suffered"? I have no idea what type of problem you think I believe in. What on Earth are you talking about?

I mean I get immigration is a hot button for you and e-verify is your latest pet rock to be shoved into every sub-thread, but honestly it has nothing to do with the principles we are talking about. Principles, not specific laws, but ideas.
   3925. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4761956)
That's not how you usually define ethnicity. I've never heard Catholic and Lutheran Germans referred to as separate ethnic groups.


In common usage I suspect you are correct, though technically I think my usage could be argued. Still ...

I am more than willing to state that culture and religion (and geography) have been the drivers of a huge majority of the drive to carve out nations in the last 100 years.
   3926. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4761957)
Ah yes, now JoeK feels the need to misstate my position. Nice straw man. The proposal I was arguing against was not about severely mentally disabled people and everyone knows it. You really have no shame do you?

LOL. I specifically mentioned "special ed" in #3906. You're either bad at reading or backtracking from a plainly idiotic position (or both).

In our current schooling we mainstream where possible. I think most public schools do a pretty good job of it. Some of those students cost more. To use examples from my family the deaf and those on the autistic spectrum now get mainstreamed in a way they never did before. I think this is a great practice and results in those mainstreamed students in being able to participate in society much more fully than before, and often times they do become fully functioning members of society.

"Often times"? I'd like to see the numbers on that. And you're still ignoring that a massively disproportionate amount of educational resources is being expended on truly hopeless educational cases, from whom you clearly don't want even a dollar reallocated, as you made clear here:

I have never suggested every single student will do so, but it is still the correct goal to try. You should not give a test and relegate the bottom 20% (or whatever figure was used up thread) to substandard education. That is crazy, miserly, and stupid.

Forget about the "bottom 20 percent" for a moment. What about the kids who are so mentally disabled that they can't even take such tests? Should we continue spending $50,000 per student per year, or whatever the crazy number is, to warehouse them in schools even if we know they're essentially if not entirely incapable of learning?
   3927. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4761962)
I am more than willing to state that culture and religion (and geography) have been the drivers of a huge majority of the drive to carve out nations in the last 100 years.

Your willingness is admirable, but you're now just flailing from one extreme to another and you still haven't got it right. Race and ethnicity have been the primary drivers. Many of the African nations, e.g., still have a Muslim/Christian/Animist divide, but they became new nations when Whitey left, and the drive to nationhood was to drive Whitey out. The non-Muslim nations of Africa also were formed by replacing their rulers with rulers of a different race. Yugoslavia divided essentially into nations of its ethnic components. Czechoslovakia broke into its ethnic consituents.

And on and on. Back of the envelope, I don't think a single new nation (other than the outlier of Israel) has been formed since the onset of the 20th c. because of "culture" or "religion."

EDIT: I guess Pakistan would be on the culture/religion list.
   3928. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4761972)
You are such an idiot.

Where did I say it was easy to identify a countries citizens? (I didn't. I said when trying to answer the question of who is an Algerian you start by asking Algerians, since they get to decide the criteria)

You said it right in #3852:

You are being very sophomoric. Andy doesn't have to define it, the Algerians did that. And very well. Are you suggesting that the Algerians didn't know who was Algerian and who was French? Of course they did and do. Every nation is able to determine with a high degree of confidence who their citizens are. So what point are you desperately and poorly trying to make?

Is your grasp of English really so poor that you don't understand your own comments?

I mean I get immigration is a hot button for you and e-verify is your latest pet rock to be shoved into every sub-thread, but honestly it has nothing to do with the principles we are talking about. Principles, not specific laws, but ideas.

Utter nonsense. If, as you've claimed, Algerians want to be governed by Algerians (or "true Algerians," or whatever definition you're using at the moment), then they'd be smart to make sure their country isn't overrun by non-Algerians in the first place and then populated by the jus soli offspring of said immigrants and infiltrators. A system like E-Verify would help them to do just that.
   3929. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4761979)

Huh? It's a hell of a lot easier to identify people by race than by nationality.


Wait, I thought race had nothing to do with skin color, nosiree, it was solidly based in genetics and stuff. You can't sequence DNA by sight, can you?
   3930. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4761990)
Yugoslavia divided essentially into nations of its ethnic components.

Yugoslavia's ethnic split has substantial religious components. Serbs, Croats and Bosnians are basically the same ethnically and linguistically (the language is Serbo-Croatian) divided mostly be religion.
   3931. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4762001)
Nope. The Sunni and Shiite Arabs are roughly the same ethnically.


This is correct, but ignores that many Sunni are of Persian ancestry, which is different ethnically than Arab.
   3932. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4762005)
This is correct, but ignores that many Sunni are of Persian ancestry, which is different ethnically than Arab.

You mean Shiites are Persian? That's true, but there are very few Persians in Iraq, they're lumped into the 1% others.
   3933. Mefisto Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4762006)
Pagination issues are caused by deleted posts. For whatever reason, the database does not handle deleted posts very well, so the counter on the sidebar shows the number of posts, while the individual pages don't adjust. So if there are posts 1-10, and post 5 gets deleted, the sidebar will show 9 posts, but the thread does not adjust posts down to compensate for the deleted posts.


Makes sense. Thanks.
   3934. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4762010)
You mean Shiites are Persian?


Gah. Yes. Brainfart.
   3935. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4762019)
Gah. Yes. Brainfart.

No probs. But there still are very, very few of them in Iraq.
   3936. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4762023)
From 1848 until independence Algeria was part of metropolitan France, ie it was not a colony. The pied noirs (if not the indigenous Algerians) considered themselves to be French, as indeed they were, as much as one living in Paris or Marseille. This was one of the reasons that the French government resisted Algerian independence so strongly and for so long, many in France viewed this as surrendering an integral part of the country. I don't know enough about Algerian history to know for sure if the unassimilated Algerians were treated worse than were the Algerians of European descent; I suspect that they were which was likely part of their discontent.


The Algerians of non-European descent were treated very differently, the pied noirs were considered French and had all the rights that other French citizens did, the "natives" did not enjoy the same legal due process rights and were subject to a wholly different penal code (Yes, the French, the creators of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" were hypocrites) vast tracts of land were simply taken from non-Europeans (without compensation) to be given to the Government or to pied noirs. When the non-pied noirs were given the vote their vote counted for about 1/6th that of the pied noirs' - for most of the 19th Century regions of the country with insufficient numbers of pied noirs (then called simply settlers) were kept under French Military control.
   3937. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:21 PM (#4762026)
Yes, the French, the creators of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" were hypocrites

Well, why not? The whole French Revolution was an exercise in hypocrisy and brutality after about the first 6 months.
   3938. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4762035)
Yugoslavia's ethnic split has substantial religious components. Serbs, Croats and Bosnians are basically the same ethnically and linguistically (the language is Serbo-Croatian) divided mostly be religion.


by religion and history

The Croats and Serbs may speak essentially the same language (and may have essentially been the same people a few centuries ago), but by the time Yugoslavia had been formed, Croatia had been part of the Hapsburg/Austrian/Hungarian Empire for centuries, and Serbia had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, only becoming independent in the 2nd half of the 19th century, so Serbs and Croats had very different political and social histories prior to unification. As for religion, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity have their problems, but nothing like the differences that Catholics/Protestants have or Shiites/Sunni have.

   3939. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4762042)
Is your grasp of English really so poor that you don't understand your own comments?


No, but you don't understand them, obviously. I was speaking about coming up with a definition of who are Algerians. Which is the question SBB asked, for example in post 3830 where he said: "So, in other words when you and your confrere insisted that "Algerians want to be ruled by Algerians, not French," you were using terms you couldn't begin to define.".

And Algeria came up with the definition. Just like the US has a definition for who is a US citizen. And it works with - as I said - a very high degree of confidence.

Does that mean 100% you can tell who is American on sight? Of course not and I never said it did and that is not what everyone understood the conversation to be about (except you I guess). However the definition of who is an American is very clear and was made (properly) by the US government.

Or is it your opinion that the US can't determine who its citizens are with a high degree of confidence? Since you are always going on about how e-verify will solve everything and that is a government program designed to do just that it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

So in summary - each nation gets to decide who its citizens are and does that very well in most cases. This general fact still has NOTHING to do with me supporting or not supporting your particular Pet Rock law regarding immigration.

Utter nonsense. If, as you've claimed, Algerians want to be governed by Algerians


Well their actions seem to indicate it. Most people want to be governed by people with shared background and goals IMO. But you seem to think I am wrong, since I am "claiming" it. So tell us, what is your theory of government? Do you agree with me or not, do people want their government to share their background, goals and so forth or not?

then they'd be smart to make sure their country isn't overrun by non-Algerians in the first place and then populated by the jus soli offspring of said immigrants and infiltrators. A system like E-Verify would help them to do just that.


I am more than willing to let the Algerians handle their domestic affairs. I bet you would not be very receptive to some Algerian lecturing you on what US immigration policy is, and I have no intention on lecturing them on the subject. Regarding US immigration I am willing to speak on the subject, but that is not what we were talking about.
   3940. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4762044)
And Algeria came up with the definition.

And again -- no, it didn't. Part of it did, in a racist way.

Do you agree with me or not, do people want their government to share their background, goals and so forth or not?

Still flailing. People in the United States don't want their government to share their "background." The average schmoes here expect the senior leaders of the federal government to be more accomplished and, really, better than they are.

   3941. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4762049)
No, but you don't understand them, obviously. I was speaking about coming up with a definition of who are Algerians. Which is the question SBB asked, for example in post 3830 where he said: "So, in other words when you and your confrere insisted that "Algerians want to be ruled by Algerians, not French," you were using terms you couldn't begin to define.".

And Algeria came up with the definition. Just like the US has a definition for who is a US citizen. And it works with - as I said - a very high degree of confidence.

Does that mean 100% you can tell who is American on sight? Of course not and I never said it did and that is not what everyone understood the conversation to be about (except you I guess). However the definition of who is an American is very clear and was made (properly) by the US government.

Or is it your opinion that the US can't determine who its citizens are with a high degree of confidence? Since you are always going on about how e-verify will solve everything and that is a government program designed to do just that it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

So in summary - each nation gets to decide who its citizens are and does that very well in most cases. This general fact still has NOTHING to do with me supporting or not supporting your particular Pet Rock law regarding immigration.

This is a combination of self-negating, as SBB pointed out above, and a shift from your earlier position (i.e., you now seem to be saying the Algerian government decided who was Algerian rather than Algerians deciding; obviously, if the government gets to decide, then that's problematic to your original claim/position, since government action, especially in places like Algeria, is often at odds with the will of the people).

Well their actions seem to indicate it. Most people want to be governed by people with shared background and goals IMO. But you seem to think I am wrong, since I am "claiming" it. So tell us, what is your theory of government? Do you agree with me or not, do people want their government to share their background, goals and so forth or not?

This sounds an awful lot like the "nativist" mentality you, Andy, et al., spend so much time railing against. I guess nativist sentiment is only bad when whitey expresses it.

I am more than willing to let the Algerians handle their domestic affairs. I bet you would not be very receptive to some Algerian lecturing you on what US immigration policy is, and I have no intention on lecturing them on the subject. Regarding US immigration I am willing to speak on the subject, but that is not what we were talking about.

Entirely non-responsive.
   3942. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:47 PM (#4762053)
This is a combination of self-negating, as SBB pointed out above, and a shift from your earlier position (i.e., you now seem to be saying the Algerian government decided who was Algerian rather than Algerians deciding; obviously, if the government gets to decide, then that's problematic to your original claim/position, since government action, especially in places like Algeria, is often at odds with the will of the people).

In fairness to him, he's flailing because his position is indefensible -- but he's still flailing. If the Algerian government at the time could authoritatively decide who was Algerian, they could have excluded the natives and included only themselves. Or any combination thereof.

Obviously that can't be the case, lest his position collapse ... which means it's back to the ol' drawing board ....
   3943. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 05:58 PM (#4762060)
And again -- no, it didn't. Part of it did, in a racist way.

This is a combination of self-negating, as SBB pointed out above, and a shift from your earlier position (i.e., you now seem to be saying the Algerian government decided who was Algerian rather than Algerians deciding; obviously, if the government gets to decide, then that's problematic to your original claim/position, since government action, especially in places like Algeria, is often at odds with the will of the people).


You two are really thrashing. If Algeria (which shockingly enough is made up of ... wait for it Algerians) did not decide who was a citizen, who did? Who should have? Do you two think there is some sort of platonic nationality everyone is assigned by god or something?

Of course each national government decides on citizenship for that nation. And governments are made up of people. The entire point of the sub thread was Algerians did not want to be ruled by the French, they wanted self rule. And so they rebelled until they got self rule. And then from that new nation came the definition of who was a citizen of that nation.

If the Algerian government at the time could authoritatively decide who was Algerian, they could have excluded the natives and included only themselves.


So again I ask, who exactly was it that decided who was Algerian and who wasn't, either back then or today? Was it aliens? The UN? The Cathedral?

The government decided. When governments decide poorly, when the people are really unhappy, they often disagree with the government. Do you understand how nations work? That governments sometimes fall? That nations split off from other nations. That things are not stuck in time, that it isn't 1979 anymore?

This sounds like the "nativist" mentality you, Andy, et al., spend so much time railing against. I guess nativist sentiment is only bad when whitey expresses it.


So you are not going to answer the question. OK then at least you won't be non-responsive and immediately accuse me of ... of wait you will to. I swear you project more than anyone I have ever dealt with. It is amazing. Performance art really.
   3944. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4762062)
If Algeria (which shockingly enough is made up of ... wait for it Algerians) did not decide who was a citizen, who did?

Well, yeah -- that's why I asked you for your definitions when you said that Algerians want(ed) to be ruled by Algerians, not Frenchmen. Before making such a declarative and insistent statement, one would think you would at least know what an Algerian and a Frenchmen were.

But, as noted above, your statement was more of an impulse or modern liberal tic than anything serious.

And then from that new nation came the definition of who was a citizen of that nation.

But no one was talking about the new nation. They were talking about the old one.

   3945. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 06:11 PM (#4762068)
Well, yeah -- that's why I asked you for your definitions when you said that Algerians want(ed) to be ruled by Algerians, not Frenchmen. Before making such a declarative and insistent statement, you would at least know what an Algerian and a Frenchmen were.


And as I said they made that determination. The NEW nation made the determination who was a citizen of that new nation. Just like every nation that has ever existed made a determination as to who its citizens were.

I don't have to know who is who. Why would I? Algeria gained its Independence and made that decision before I was even born and I have never been in the country of Algeria.

The statement I made, that I continue to make, is that people want their government to have shared goals, background, and so on. You keep wanting to throw race as the main factor, because race is your obsession. But it is not mine. Sometimes race is a factor, sometimes it isn't.
   3946. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4762075)
You two are really thrashing. If Algeria (which shockingly enough is made up of ... wait for it Algerians) did not decide who was a citizen, who did? Who should have? Do you two think there is some sort of platonic nationality everyone is assigned by god or something?

No, our position is the same as it's always been. You're the one who's all over the map.

Of course each national government decides on citizenship for that nation. And governments are made up of people. The entire point of the sub thread was Algerians did not want to be ruled by the French, they wanted self rule. And so they rebelled until they got self rule. And then from that new nation came the definition of who was a citizen of that nation.

Okay, what if white Americans take a vote and decide that black Americans aren't American anymore? Would you be OK with that? If not, why not?

Earlier today, you said you oppose revoking jus soli citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants — illegal immigrants being, by definition, not American — so your position(s) seem utterly lacking of any underlying principle. One minute you argue for "common background" for Algerians; the next, it's citizenship for all comers in the U.S. Your position is a train wreck.

So you are not going to answer the question. OK then at least you won't be non-responsive and immediately accuse me of ... of wait you will to. I swear you project more than anyone I have ever dealt with. It is amazing. Performance art really.

I answered parts implicitly and parts explicitly; you just didn't like my answer.

Speaking of not answering questions, did you miss #3926 or are you intentionally avoiding it, since honest answers would render your position on education spending just as inane as your position on the above topic?
   3947. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4762079)
So you are not going to answer the question. OK then at least you won't be non-responsive and immediately accuse me of ... of wait you will to. I swear you project more than anyone I have ever dealt with. It is amazing. Performance art really.


No he's not going to answer your questions, because he's not talking about your questions, I'm not sure he actually understands yur questiosn anyway, he's exclusively concerned with/sparring with the strawmen in his head:

And then from that new nation came the definition of who was a citizen of that nation.

But no one was talking about the new nation. They were talking about the old one.


parse out his "response" it's wondrous in how it's a complete non-sequitur to anything he, you or anyone else has actually said in this thread, what's "new nation" is that post-independence Algeria? so is "old nation" pre-independence Algeria? If so, when he blames "them" for being racist when they decided that some people living in Algeria are Algerians and some are not- who is this "them" who are being racist? Well obviously if you are talking about the "old nation" the racists are the French/pied noirs who denied the rights and privileges of citizenship to the "natives" But wait that can't be what he means because he objects to the French Algerian distinction in the first place? Or are the "Algerians" the racist ones for denying that the "Algerians" with European ancestry were Algerian? Well that can't be it, since the ancestors of the pied noirs who remained in Algeria are Algerian citizens...

It is performance art in a way, he just randomly drops in things that are logically disconnected from everything (everything he, you or anyone else said previously) there's no internal logical consistency like there is when almost anyone else posts frequently...
   3948. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 06:36 PM (#4762083)

Nice piece of "fact-checking," Johnny. The comments you quoted were directed at two different people, but you didn't let that stop you from crafting a narrative.

"Performance art" and "sparring with the straw men in [your] head," indeed.
   3949. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 06:42 PM (#4762089)
Yugoslavia's ethnic split has substantial religious components. Serbs, Croats and Bosnians are basically the same ethnically and linguistically (the language is Serbo-Croatian) divided mostly be religion.

I've always understood the division as an ethnic one determined primarily by religion. The Yugoslav experience is one which demonstrates how religion can be used as a primary factor in constructing ethnicities. Ethnic identities can be constructed using a whole range of factors, religion, physical appearance, language, etc.

EDIT: I see this is exactly the points you guys were all making...consider my post redundant and pointless.
   3950. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4762093)
The Algerians of non-European descent were treated very differently, the pied noirs were considered French and had all the rights that other French citizens did, the "natives" did not enjoy the same legal due process rights and were subject to a wholly different penal code (Yes, the French, the creators of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" were hypocrites) vast tracts of land were simply taken from non-Europeans (without compensation) to be given to the Government or to pied noirs. When the non-pied noirs were given the vote their vote counted for about 1/6th that of the pied noirs' - for most of the 19th Century regions of the country with insufficient numbers of pied noirs (then called simply settlers) were kept under French Military control.

This is what I don't get about the Algerian debate going on. It's my understanding that the Algerians (and most nationalities yearning for freedom) didn't want self-rule because it is the natural, inherent, state for ethnicities to govern themselves, but because for generations a foreign elite had excluded them from power and legal protections on the basis of their ethnicity. The result being "hey, if we want equal protection under the law we're going to have to run it ourselves since we can't trust anyone else to not exclude us".

It's not some inherent need for self-rule, or racism...it's the product of long experience that these guys are excluding us based on our ethnicity...therefore in order to get treated fairly we're going to need our ethnic brethren in charge. In my experience you find that in polities where exclusion based on ethnicity isn't present there is a lot less agitation for ethnic self-rule. The Roman Empire, or even (though I'm on shaky knowledge here) the Abbasid caliphate once the Persian muslims were integrated into the empire, or even the Hapsburgs before nationalism got all trendy in the 19th century.

EDIT: In other words, the push to self-rule isn't about abstract principle, but about history and the real life experience of the specific people in question.
   3951. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:08 PM (#4762107)
parse out his "response" it's wondrous in how it's a complete non-sequitur to anything he, you or anyone else has actually said in this thread, what's "new nation" is that post-independence Algeria? so is "old nation" pre-independence Algeria?

??

"New nation" was BM's term.

Or are the "Algerians" the racist ones for denying that the "Algerians" with European ancestry were Algerian?

Getting warmer.
   3952. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:15 PM (#4762114)
It's not some inherent need for self-rule, or racism...it's the product of long experience that these guys are excluding us based on our ethnicity...therefore in order to get treated fairly we're going to need our ethnic brethren in charge. In my experience you find that in polities where exclusion based on ethnicity isn't present there is a lot less agitation for ethnic self-rule.

That's a very good point, but the question at hand is whether it's inherently unjust to be ruled by a different "race." IOW, had the "French" not excluded the "Algerians" could they justly govern "Algeria"?

The modern liberal answer certainly appears to be "No" -- since that's the answer they've always given -- and given their decades-old and still burning hissy fit over "colonialism" and virtual silence about misrule generally. We saw it play out in the hissy fit over the mere suggestion that Iraq would be better off under American rule -- as it plainly would be.

   3953. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4762119)
That's a very good point, but the question at hand is whether it's inherently unjust to be ruled by a different "race." IOW, had the "French" not excluded the "Algerians" could they justly govern "Algeria"?

The modern liberal answer certainly appears to be "No" -- since that's the answer they've always given -- and given their decades-old and still burning hissy fit over "colonialism" and general silence about misrule generally.


The French cannot justly govern Algeria unless Algeria is simply part of France.

This isn't the "modern liberal" position. It's the position of 1776: No taxation without representation.
   3954. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:23 PM (#4762120)
The French cannot justly govern Algeria unless Algeria is simply part of France.

This isn't the "modern liberal" position. It's the position of 1776: No taxation without representation.

The first sentence might be right, but what follows is a non sequitur.
   3955. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:27 PM (#4762125)
That's a very good point, but the question at hand is whether it's inherently unjust to be ruled by a different "race." IOW, had the "French" not excluded the "Algerians" could they justly govern "Algeria"?

The modern liberal answer certainly appears to be "No" -- since that's the answer they've always given -- and given their decades-old and still burning hissy fit over "colonialism."

Fair enough, seems like an awfully hypothetical conversation to have. If "being ruled" here means that the ruling elite restrict the legal rights of a minority based on their ethnicity, then I'd think we could all agree that's unjust. If "being ruled" means the particular people in power at any given time are not of that ethnicity - it's not a great example but off the top of my head the Conservative Party is in power right now in Canada, and they hold 5 of the 75 seats in Quebec. Is that one ethnicity ruling another? I don't think anyone (outside of the Quebec separatists who are more marginal now than any other time in recent memory) argue that this gives French Canadians the right to treat the government as illegitimate.

I guess I prefer to deal with practical examples...is there a historical or contemporary situation where one ethnicity controls power for a sustained period of time over another ethnicity without restricting the political, economic, or legal rights of the ruled? In that case, is it seen as unjust by someone in present society, liberal or otherwise?

EDIT: I feel like I should add just to be safe, those are honest questions...if we're going to have a discussion why not have it about a situation that fits the parameters.
   3956. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:28 PM (#4762126)
The first sentence might be right, but what follows is a non sequitur.


Huh? SBB says that this is a "modern liberal" position. In a way he's right, because it is the position that modern liberals hold, but anti-colonialism isn't a new idea. The American Revolution certainly wasn't undertaken by Norman Mailer and Paul Krugman.
   3957. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:32 PM (#4762130)
England wasn't engaged in "colonialism" in the modern liberal sense of the term.

So it would have been perfectly fine if France has simply made Algeria or part of it a full territory or province. Good to know -- at least that's some progress. I doubt if you're going to get much modern liberal buy-in to that, but at least it's honest.

   3958. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:34 PM (#4762131)
England wasn't engaged in "colonialism" in the modern liberal sense of the term.


wat

Edit: SBB WINS THE INTERNET TROLL AWARD OF THE YEAR AGAIN!!!!!!!
   3959. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:38 PM (#4762132)
Edit: SBB WINS THE INTERNET TROLL AWARD OF THE YEAR AGAIN!!!!!!!

So the claim here is that a simple Google search won't find hundreds of articles decrying inter-racial colonialism as "racist" or some close relative?

English rule over the American colonies was intra-racial.
   3960. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:38 PM (#4762133)
wat

I'm as firm a supporter of the good guys (ie British) in the American Revolution...but that seemed like standard colonialism to me. Economic exploitation and restricted political rights for the colonized.
   3961. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:38 PM (#4762134)
Huh? SBB says that this is a "modern liberal" position. In a way he's right, because it is the position that modern liberals hold, but anti-colonialism isn't a new idea. The American Revolution certainly wasn't undertaken by Norman Mailer and Paul Krugman.

It's a non sequitur because you conflated two different issues. By your logic, a Latino in a city with no Latino city councilors would have grounds for not paying property and sales taxes.
   3962. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:40 PM (#4762138)
It's a non sequitur because you conflated two different issues. By your logic, a Latino in a city with no Latino city councilors would have grounds for not paying property and sales taxes.

I took him to mean that France could not rule Algeria justly unless Algeria was part of France (ie. its people afforded the same legal and political rights as any other Frenchman).
   3963. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:41 PM (#4762139)
It's a non sequitur because you conflated two different issues. By your logic, a Latino in a city with no Latino city councilors would have grounds for not paying property and sales taxes.


No, because the Latino is an American, as are the members of his government. He is represented by his elected officials. Just because I didn't vote for Bush didn't make him [edit:] NOT the President.

Now, residents of Washington DC DO have grounds for not paying their local taxes.

Edit: Greg K has my meaning correct, which I guess was not clear (I apologize for any misunderstanding, as it was probably my fault for jumping into the middle of the conversation).
   3964. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:43 PM (#4762142)
I took him to mean that France could not rule Algeria justly unless Algeria was part of France (ie. its people afforded the same legal and political rights as any other Frenchman).

I did, too, but I also took him to mean that an Algeria that was part of France and had all-French government (i.e., non-native Algerians, or non-"true Algerians," or whatever Bitter Mouse was calling them) would still be illegitimate.

EDIT: Per #3963, I see the above is not how Shipman sees things. However, I find it unlikely that Algerians or colonial Americans would have shared his outlook — i.e., I doubt the anti-colonialism in late-1700s America would have subsided if the king had allowed the colonies some token representation on a committee or in a parliament packed with stooges/loyalists who rubber-stamped the crown's wishes.

To be clear, I'm happy with the result of the Revolutionary War. I don't, however, believe that a government of non-natives is per se illegitimate.
   3965. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4762143)
I did, too, but I also took him to mean that an Algeria that was part of France and had all-French government (i.e., non-native Algerians, or non-"true Algerians," or whatever Bitter Mouse was calling them) would still be illegitimate.

As long as the Algerians were allowed to participate in the choosing of government I don't see why that would be the case in his construction.
   3966. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:48 PM (#4762144)
So we can occupy and colonize Iraq, as long as we make it a state?
   3967. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:49 PM (#4762145)
EDIT: Per #3963, I see the above is not how Shipman sees things. However, I find his conclusion to be unlikely. I doubt the anti-colonialism in late-1700s America would have subsided if the king had allowed the colonies some token representation on some committee of stooges that rubber-stamped the crown's wishes.

The failure to do that is exactly where I place the blame for the war. Number two on the list behind the colonials being spoiled brats.

Had the British been a bit more flexible in handling the crisis I think there's every chance the needless revolution could have been avoided.
   3968. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:50 PM (#4762146)
So we can occupy and colonize Iraq, as long as we make it a state?

We?
You can guys can go for it, good luck!

But I would imagine part of the "having political rights and being allowed to participate in the political process" is being brought into the polity willingly (ie. not being conquered)

EDIT: In other words, if the people of Hypothetistan have come to some kind of internally legitimized political decision to enter into a union with the United States, and the United States likewise makes an internally legitimized decision to welcome them in, and after said union is completed the people of Hypothetistan are allowed the same political, legal, and economic rights as the citizens of the nation, then sure, why not?
   3969. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:51 PM (#4762147)
I doubt the anti-colonialism in late-1700s America would have subsided if the king had allowed the colonies some token representation on some committee of stooges that rubber-stamped the crown's wishes.


I agree completely as a matter of historical analysis. The colonists freedom movement was always more about taxation than about government.

That said, if the populace of a minority ethic region (like say ... Quebec) is treated as a full fledged citizen of the larger country and granted all rights and privileges, then their treatment is just in my opinion. And indeed, if France had treated the denizens of Algiers as full fledged citizens, then it seems much more likely that Algiers would be a part of France today. Ultimately, the legitimacy of a government depends on the consent of the governed.

There are tons of examples of ethnic minorities enjoying representation in larger governments peacefully: Sicilians, Castillians, Wallonians (or is it Flemish?), etc.
   3970. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:55 PM (#4762149)
Since some here are highly enamored by 2016 polls, this may be of interest - Harry Reid Trails Brian Sandoval:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s reelection campaign promises to be the premier down-ballot race in 2016. And a new automated poll shows the five-term Democrat faces an uphill battle in convincing Nevada voters to send him back to Washington for six more years. According to a Harper Polling survey, Reid trails popular GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval, who hasn’t ruled out challenging the incumbent, by 10 points, 53 percent to 43 percent. Veteran Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston first reported the poll’s findings on his website, ralstonreports.com.

Reid’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll is significantly underwater (41 percent/55 percent). Sandoval’s rating, on the other hand, is stellar (58/30).

Picking off Reid might at least partially offset a potentially difficult 2016 Senate map for the GOP.
   3971. zenbitz Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4762150)
Are you guys actually arguing whether or not the FLN treated the pieds-noires justly in 1962? Or is there some recent Algerian flare up that I don't know about?
   3972. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 07:58 PM (#4762151)
Are you guys actually arguing whether or not the FLN treated the pieds-noires justly in 1962? Or is there some recent Algerian flare up that I don't know about?


SBB is trying to tell you idiots that Great Britain never colonized the Americas. Were you all educated stupid?
   3973. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:02 PM (#4762154)
As long as the Algerians were allowed to participate in the choosing of government I don't see why that would be the case in his construction.

In the long run, there's not much difference between not being allowed to vote at all (or not having representation) and coming out on the losing end of every election or decision.*

Beyond that, it seems inherent in the idea that "Algerians want to be governed by Algerians" that the (alleged) non-Algerians engaged in things to which the (alleged) "real" Algerians objected, rather than the whole thing being a simple matter of identity politics.


(* If it's just the local Green Party nutjob, it's not a problem, but if there's a critical mass of people who are of like mind, it can become one.)
   3974. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:07 PM (#4762155)
Beyond that, it seems inherent in the idea that "Algerians want to be governed by Algerians" that the (alleged) non-Algerians engaged in things to which the (alleged) "real" Algerians objected, rather than the whole thing being a simple matter of identity politics.

Well yeah, that's kind of my point about why Algeria is sort of a silly example to use in this discussion. The hypothetical of Algerians getting equal legal rights in a French polity just wasn't going to happen in reality. Hence the drive for independence.
   3975. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:10 PM (#4762157)
In the long run, there's not much difference between not being allowed to vote at all (or not having representation) and coming out on the losing end of every election or decision.


Of course there is. Even though there were no black presidents before Obama, African Americans found great value in being able to vote. Parts of the country found so much value in suppressing their vote that we had a war about it.

Beyond that, it seems inherent in the idea that "Algerians want to be governed by Algerians" that the (alleged) non-Algerians engaged in things to which the (alleged) "real" Algerians objected, rather than the whole thing being a simple matter of identity politics.


I don't understand this. Could you rephrase?

Edit: or maybe Greg K can act as Joe's interlocutor as well as for me.
   3976. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:13 PM (#4762159)
Edit: or maybe Greg K can act as Joe's interlocutor as well as for me.

I'm reading that as him saying that the Algerians wanted independence because of mistreatment by the French, not out of the inherent desire every ethnicity has for self rule.

Though I may have that wrong.
   3977. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:21 PM (#4762163)
I'm reading that as him saying that the Algerians wanted independence because of mistreatment by the French, not out of the inherent desire every ethnicity has for self rule.


Ah, okay. In case you're right (and because I'm bored!), I agree with you that Algeria is a very silly test case, as quite obviously they were treated very poorly.

In the larger sense, where an ethnicity is treated very fairly? Hard to say. Quebec has periodic votes for secession, and Scotland has one scheduled. Nationalism is a strange thing and hard to predict. I would say that generally speaking, when the minority ethnicity is treated fairly, secession or continued rule tends to depend on economic factors. In my opinion if Scotland were to leave the UK, that would be just, as would their continued participation.
   3978. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4762164)
Well yeah, that's kind of my point about why Algeria is sort of a silly example to use in this discussion. The hypothetical of Algerians getting equal legal rights in a French polity just wasn't going to happen in reality. Hence the drive for independence.

Right, but that's not how Shipman seems to see it, at least not per my reading of #3969.

***
Of course there is. Even though there were no black presidents before Obama, African Americans found great value in being able to vote.

Apples and oranges. Also, you just got done agreeing that anti-colonial sentiment wouldn't have been tamped down via token representation, which is how this discussion got started (i.e., when I objected to your characterization of this being, at its core, a "taxation without representation" issue).

Parts of the country found so much value in suppressing their vote that we had a war about it.

We had a war over black voting rights? When?
   3979. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4762165)
Almost missed this one - Partisanship Poll Indicates Tough Midterm Environment For Dems:
An average of 42% of Americans currently identify as Democrats or say they are independent but lean to the Democratic Party. Slightly fewer, 40%, are Republicans or Republican leaners. That narrow two-percentage-point Democratic edge is closer to what Gallup measured in the third quarter of strong Republican midterm years such as 1994, 2002, and 2010 than in the strong Democratic years of 1998 and 2006.
. . .
Democrats have typically enjoyed an advantage in partisanship among the U.S. adult population. However, Republicans usually vote at higher rates than Democrats. That Republican Party turnout advantage leaves the Democratic Party politically vulnerable in midterm election years when they do not have a significant cushion in partisanship.

Seems like bad news for Democrats, especially given how other polls are showing Independents favoring the GOP.
   3980. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4762169)
Apples and oranges. Also, you just got done agreeing that anti-colonial sentiment wouldn't have been tamped down via token representation.


First of all, I have no idea what we're actually disagreeing about, I just wanted to take shots at SBB, so I'm going to drop all the Algeria stuff because I can't keep everything straight. I think broadly speaking that we agree that black people in Algeria were treated poorly, and that probably drove their desire for independence. I think but am not sure that we broadly agree that if Algerians were treated like full fledged French, then it is more likely but not assured that they would still be part of France. If we disagree on any of that, I apologize. Frankly the whole thing confuses me.


Second of all, I would like to separate out historical analysis from discussions of morality or immorality. It's difficult for me to read much about the founding fathers and think that they were anything but opportunistic, ambitious men. I don't think that token representation would have stemmed the tide, but perhaps full fledged membership in the House of Lords would have along with elevations to the peerage. Most of the colonists' complains were relatively frivolous and were focused on newly imposed taxes. However, despite me thinking that, I do believe that the crown's control of the colonies was unjust.

I'm going to ignore the stuff about black voting rights because I don't want to get into a gotcha-fight about the Civil War.

   3981. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:34 PM (#4762170)
Seems like bad news for Democrats, especially given how other polls are showing Independents favoring the GOP.


GCB 7/31/2010: R+4.8
GCB 7/31/2014: D+2.5
   3982. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:37 PM (#4762173)
Yugoslavia's ethnic split has substantial religious components. Serbs, Croats and Bosnians are basically the same ethnically and linguistically (the language is Serbo-Croatian)
Yes, although Croats use the Latin alphabet while Serbs use the Cyrillic one.
   3983. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:39 PM (#4762174)
First of all, I have no idea what we're actually disagreeing about, I just wanted to take shots at SBB

You agreed with the fundamental principle that French rule over Algeria wasn't inherently unjust, merely unjustly executed. You also said, correctly, that France could have justly incorporated Algeria into France.
   3984. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4762179)
You agreed with the fundamental principle that French rule over Algeria wasn't inherently unjust, merely unjustly executed.


That is not correct, actually. French rule over Algeria is inherently unjust because stating it in that way implies that Algeria is not a part of France. It is not just to conquer another sovereign nation for resources or territory.

But, if you wake up in 1945 with Algeria as part of France, it is not unjust to hold a vote and allow all Algerians to become full French citizens and for Algeria to become part of France.

I predict more headaches.
   3985. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 08:57 PM (#4762184)
That is not correct, actually. French rule over Algeria is inherently unjust because stating it in that way implies that Algeria is not a part of France. It is not just to conquer another sovereign nation for resources or territory.

But, if you wake up in 1945 with Algeria as part of France, it is not unjust to hold a vote and allow all Algerians to become full French citizens and for Algeria to become part of France.

Generally speaking, the only way these situations arise is via conflict. Ignoring the conflict part renders the entire exercise all but pointless.
   3986. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 09:08 PM (#4762188)
Generally speaking, the only way these situations arise is via conflict. Ignoring the conflict part renders the entire exercise all but pointless.

An interesting scenario might be French Canada. British takes over through conquest, affords the ethnic group certain religious freedoms (while sticking with the usual economic, political restrictions). Ethnic group is sufficiently mollified to resist invitation to revolt against the mother country proffered by fellow colonials to the south. In the long run, with many bumps in the road said ethnic group has a relatively stable place in the national polity. Throughout its history there has been agitation (at times peaceful, occasionally violent) for self-determination which has been met with accommodation, concession, or repression depending on the situation.

I'd say Quebec is a long run (if work in progress) success of ethnic inclusion via conquest. Not sure if that makes the 18th century conquest just, but maybe there's a statute of limitations on those things.
   3987. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2014 at 09:27 PM (#4762200)
Generally speaking, the only way these situations arise is via conflict. Ignoring the conflict part renders the entire exercise all but pointless.


Yeah, I would echo Greg K's comments. We have to deal with the world we woke up in. Scotland and Quebec are great and instructive examples for how you can have an ethnic minority and either continue "occupying" them or not.

I would also say that in the modern world, the conflict is generally placed far in the past. We can't change William Wallace being killed by the English crown, but the larger Great Britain can still treat a vote for Scottish independence fairly.
   3988. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 09:37 PM (#4762205)
Yeah, I would echo Greg K's comments. We have to deal with the world we woke up in. Scotland and Quebec are great and instructive examples for how you can have an ethnic minority and either continue "occupying" them or not.

Scotland does pose an interesting case as well. Although Scotland and England had an off and on state of war for centuries the actual union of England and Scotland was surprisingly peaceable. When James became King of England (after many years as King of Scotland) he had plans to consolidate the two kingdoms which didn't pan out at the time (not least of which due to mistrust, jealousy and xenophobia between the elites of the two kingdoms). As with most things Cromwell then kind of soured things, but the actual union in the early 18th century was an entirely peaceful and negotiated settlement. Which you have to say, no matter the outcome of the Scottish vote this Fall, was a pretty successful merger for both parties.
   3989. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 10:34 PM (#4762235)

Okay, what if white Americans take a vote and decide that black Americans aren't American anymore? Would you be OK with that? If not, why not?


Already answered in 3887. Please pay attention.

Earlier today, you said you oppose revoking jus soli citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants — illegal immigrants being, by definition, not American — so your position(s) seem utterly lacking of any underlying principle. One minute you argue for "common background" for Algerians; the next, it's citizenship for all comers in the U.S. Your position is a train wreck.


What I said was that America gets to determine who American citizens are, Algerians determine for themselves and so on - as it has ever been. I also said I had preferences, and I prefer the US version to, for example, the French or German version.

I acknowledge that each country has the right to determine for itself (like has been done forever), and also suggest I have preferences for the best way a country can structure itself (and really like many aspects of how the US does it).

Only in you bizarre nuance free world is that a train wreck.
   3990. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 10:37 PM (#4762237)
Forget about the "bottom 20 percent" for a moment. What about the kids who are so mentally disabled that they can't even take such tests? Should we continue spending $50,000 per student per year, or whatever the crazy number is, to warehouse them in schools even if we know they're essentially if not entirely incapable of learning?


What about them? Do you object to the current state of affairs? DO you know more about the situation than the people who designed the current policy? Obviously not because you don't know how much it costs, what the benefits are and what the costs and benefits are of the alternatives. You are just spoouting off and projecting and arguing with the voices in your head.
   3991. Greg K Posted: July 31, 2014 at 10:45 PM (#4762239)
Interesting interview I heard on CBC today about a Dutch primateologist (if that's a thing). Apparently he was observing a species of monkeys (forget which) that has very strict social rules within the group. Violators are punished quite severely. But one of the group had some kind of physical/mental disability that manifested itself in some minor physical impairments, but mostly effected her ability to understand social mores, or learn how to do any of the productive things monkeys do. However she was actually taken care of by the group, provided with food she couldn't get herself etc. What's more she would quite often violate group social rules, even at times challenging the pack leader to a fight (which is apparently a huge no-no). The monkeys of the group would treat these faux-pas(es?) as honest mistakes and not hold them against her at all. Eventually the monkey was put down because whatever was wrong with her became too degenerative...I was unclear on what exactly happened. But I thought it kind of interesting in view of the discussion here on the treatment of the disabled. Presumably there was some kind of evolutionary value these monkeys had in taking care of this moocher.
   3992. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 10:46 PM (#4762242)
This is what I don't get about the Algerian debate going on. It's my understanding that the Algerians (and most nationalities yearning for freedom) didn't want self-rule because it is the natural, inherent, state for ethnicities to govern themselves, but because for generations a foreign elite had excluded them from power and legal protections on the basis of their ethnicity. The result being "hey, if we want equal protection under the law we're going to have to run it ourselves since we can't trust anyone else to not exclude us".


By the way I agree with most of this (well except I am bitter it is said better than I did). It is what I was trying to get at talking about common goals. If people feel like they are together and being treated fairly generally things can be worked out.

It happens that mistreatment often happens across ethnic and religious lines, so as a practical matter countries often split along those lines.
   3993. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2014 at 10:50 PM (#4762244)
Presumably there was some kind of evolutionary value these monkeys had in taking care of this moocher.


We share a huge amount with other animals. People tend to think they are so special, but in many ways not so much. I find it very understandable, since most animals with complex brains show emotions and thought processes very analogous to people's.

Animal rights are the way of the future*. Much like we look back on earlier times and are appalled by slavery and such so to will our ancestors look back at us in horror. Oh well.

* And still I had steak for dinner this evening. If you want to call me out for hypocrisy that is the prime place to do it - of course I will laugh and keep eating steak.
   3994. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 31, 2014 at 11:19 PM (#4762257)
Already answered in 3887. Please pay attention.

You didn't answer it there. You simply hand-waved the idea that your majority-rule position could trample minority rights and lead to some rather dire outcomes.

What I said was that America gets to determine who American citizens are, Algerians determine for themselves and so on - as it has ever been. I also said I had preferences, and I prefer the US version to, for example, the French or German version.

Right, so if the Algerians want to be nativists, you have no problem with it and even endorse it. It's only when whitey starts making such noises that you get outraged.

What about them? Do you object to the current state of affairs? DO you know more about the situation than the people who designed the current policy? Obviously not because you don't know how much it costs, what the benefits are and what the costs and benefits are of the alternatives. You are just spoouting off and projecting and arguing with the voices in your head.

I'm afraid this was non-responsive, just as I had suspected it would be.

Simple question: Do you believe the U.S. should be spending more, less, or the same amount of money on severely mentally handicapped kids who exhibit little or no capacity for learning?
   3995. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:23 AM (#4762285)
Jesus, the ####### French ruled Algeria like all colonial powers ruled all colonies: They exploited the local population for their own benefit, instituted a dual system of laws that favored "Europeans" over the other 90% of the population, and gave the 90% little or no say in running the country they lived in. And surprise, surprise: The indigenous population wanted them to go back where they came from, and after repeated peaceful pleas had gotten them nowhere they started an armed revolution. What a shock, and how immoral can you get?

That some folks want to drag in some wholly irrelevant #### about the 10% of the Algerian population that was of European descent (AKA the pieds noirs) just shows the lengths to which they'll go to rationalize minority rule of any type---as long as that minority is white, and as long as there's some conveniently corrupt third world state around to point to and say "so's your mom". As if the current government of Algeria's horrific record is any justification for what the French did before 1962. Christ, outside of the Le Pen crowd even the French don't try to pretend this.

Yeah, I'm sure that if the Nigerians or the Filipinos came over here, took all the best land for themselves at gunpoint, made the current U.S. population into third class citizens, and generally treated us the way that the French treated the non-pieds noirs Algerians, Sugar Bear and his blow buddies here would simply shrug their shoulders and cry "modern liberal racism" if any Americans complained about it. That anyone would ever take his colonialist apologetics seriously for a second simply demonstrates the childishness of some of these threads. It's as if 132 years of history can be rendered irrelevant by some sophomoric distractions about whether the pieds noirs were Algerian or not. Of course they were, but so what?

   3996. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:28 AM (#4762317)
Jesus, the ####### French ruled Algeria like all colonial powers ruled all colonies: They exploited the local population for their own benefit, instituted a dual system of laws that favored [special interest groups] over the other 90% of the population, and gave [non-liberals] little or no say in running the country they lived in.

Sort of reminds one of how Obama and his liberal cronies are running America these days.
   3997. Dr. Vaux Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:51 AM (#4762330)
and gave [non-liberals] little or no say in running the country they lived in.


I thought you and Yankee Clapper were all excited about the upcoming Republican takeover of Congress.
   3998. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:13 AM (#4762333)
It's the 70th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising. To state the obvious, Josef Stalin was not a nice person.
   3999. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:01 AM (#4762336)
Jesus, the ####### French ruled Algeria like all colonial powers ruled all colonies: They exploited the local population for their own benefit, instituted a dual system of laws that favored "Europeans" over the other 90% of the population, and gave the 90% little or no say in running the country they lived in.

Stipulated. But the question at hand is, "What if they hadn't?" Yes, they didn't rule well, but what if they had?

As if the current government of Algeria's horrific record is any justification for what the French did before 1962.

Of course it's relevant, for the reasons Snapper alluded to. Other than to modern liberals, there's nothing just -- and a lot racist -- to violently attack misrulers of one race merely to replace them with misrulers of another race.

Yeah, I'm sure that if the Nigerians or the Filipinos came over here, took all the best land for themselves at gunpoint, made the current U.S. population into third class citizens, and generally treated us the way that the French treated the non-pieds noirs Algerians, Sugar Bear and his blow buddies here would simply shrug their shoulders and cry "modern liberal racism" if any Americans complained about it.

Inapposite. By the time of your civil rights era heyday (*), France had governed Algeria for 130 years.

It's as if 132 years of history can be rendered irrelevant by some sophomoric distractions about whether the pieds noirs were Algerian or not. Of course they were, but so what?

Then the suggestion that started this conversation, that "Algerians want to be ruled by Algerians, not Frenchmen" has been proven to be wildly inaccurate. Certain types of Algerians wanted to be ruled by Algerians of a different race. That hardly justifies the wholesale bombing of cafes and other civilian innocents.

(*) Wherein it's virtually certain, bull sessions abounded wherein comparisons between Jim Crow and colonialism ran rampant -- as did innumerable scholarly and mainstream publications both then and now. The idea that modern liberal attacks on colonialism are merely race-neutral encomiums to good government is comical.

   4000. Joey B. Posted: August 01, 2014 at 07:26 AM (#4762342)
Guess what: it's August 1, all you little Moursundian red diaper doper babies! Time for a new political thread!
Page 40 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 38 39 40 41 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(144 - 11:11pm, Dec 20)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogDodgers biggest spenders in payroll
(4 - 11:10pm, Dec 20)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9182 - 10:50pm, Dec 20)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(94 - 10:35pm, Dec 20)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5134 - 10:30pm, Dec 20)
Last: 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(759 - 10:09pm, Dec 20)
Last: stanmvp48

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(33 - 9:31pm, Dec 20)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(11 - 9:31pm, Dec 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2014 - January 2015)
(106 - 9:30pm, Dec 20)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogThe Jeff Jacobs HOF Ballot: Keep The Voting Serious And Fair
(7 - 9:22pm, Dec 20)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogAmazin' Avenue - Cohen: Mets and Rockies discussing Troy Tulowitzki deal with Noah Syndergaard as the centerpiece
(52 - 8:33pm, Dec 20)
Last: billyshears

Hall of MeritHerman Long
(10 - 7:54pm, Dec 20)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogThe right — and wrong — way for Mets to get Tulowitzki | New York Post
(11 - 6:55pm, Dec 20)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogAngels, Red Sox discontinue pension plans for non-uniformed personnel - LA Times
(18 - 6:40pm, Dec 20)
Last: GregD

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1371 - 5:56pm, Dec 20)
Last: Dan The Mediocre

Page rendered in 0.9634 seconds
50 querie(s) executed