|
|
I thought this was interesting. There is unrest within the Republican party and the direction it is headed.
As Republicans prepare for yet another show vote on abortion Tuesday, Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team are facing a rising tide of frustration from Republican moderates angry over the rightward tack the conference has taken under his leadership.
Tuesday’s abortion vote – which would ban late term abortions in the District of Columbia – has rubbed a number of moderates wrong. Given that the bill may not pass the House – and would never be taken up by the Senate – moderates and even some conservatives have questioned leadership’s decision to force another vote on a divisive social issue rather than remain solely focused on the economy.
Those dissatisfied moderates hit Boehner with a one-two punch Monday.
First, the Columbus Dispatch reported that Rep. Steve LaTourette had abruptly decided to retire. That decision shocked many Republicans, in part because LaTourette – who like Boehner is a from Ohio – has had, at least until recently, an extremely close relationship with the Speaker.
At the same time, Syracuse Republican Rep. Hanna harshly criticized the GOP, arguing leadership has gone too far in deferring to the demands of conservatives.
“I have to say that I’m frustrated by how much we — I mean the Republican Party — are willing to give deferential treatment to our extremes in this moment in history,” Hanna told the Post-Standard.
According to Republicans, moderate members of the House GOP conference feel that Boehner, who has struggled with an often raucous and openly defiant right wing, has forced them to go along with conservative demands but has provided them little in return.
One Republican familiar with the dynamics within the GOP argued part of the difficulty for Boehner has been the fact that conservatives -- and not moderates -- have been the "squeaky wheel" within the conference, which has forced him to focus on them for much of the 112th Congress.
Rather than work with his entire conference Boehner has had to "prove to conservatives constantly that he's advocating for them and not screwing them behind their backs," the Republican said.
Boehner remains deeply popular within his conference, and despite the frustration of moderates he faces virtually no chance of an effort oust him as Speaker.
Although a spokesman for Boehner declined to comment, one Republican lawmaker privately downplayed Hanna's complaints, noting that pushing back against leadership is a favored past time of lawmakers in swing districts like Hanna's.
Nevertheless, Republicans acknowledged that unhappiness with leadership amongst the moderate ranks has been growing for months. Earlier this year LaTourette and the chamber’s “Old Bulls” – a group of old-line appropriators and other dealmakers – openly broke with Boehner over his efforts to reshape federal transportation spending.
And the decision by Majority Leader Eric Cantor to schedule several votes on abortion, reaffirming that the nation’s motto is, in fact, “In God We Trust” and other social issues has angered moderates for more than a year.
“Leadership told us that the ‘get out of town’ week messaging was ‘stop the tax hike.’ It baffles many of us that they would muddy that messaging by scheduling an abortion bill vote,” one Republican told Buzzfeed Friday of the decision to hold another abortion vote.
Still, moderate dissatisfaction appears to have been far worse than had been thought – so much so, in his interview with the Post-Standard Hanna went so far as to say that “I would say that the friends I have in the Democratic Party I find ... much more congenial — a little less anger.”
|
On August 01 2012 10:31 Defacer wrote:I thought this was interesting. There is unrest within the Republican party and the direction it is headed. Show nested quote +As Republicans prepare for yet another show vote on abortion Tuesday, Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team are facing a rising tide of frustration from Republican moderates angry over the rightward tack the conference has taken under his leadership.
Tuesday’s abortion vote – which would ban late term abortions in the District of Columbia – has rubbed a number of moderates wrong. Given that the bill may not pass the House – and would never be taken up by the Senate – moderates and even some conservatives have questioned leadership’s decision to force another vote on a divisive social issue rather than remain solely focused on the economy.
Those dissatisfied moderates hit Boehner with a one-two punch Monday.
First, the Columbus Dispatch reported that Rep. Steve LaTourette had abruptly decided to retire. That decision shocked many Republicans, in part because LaTourette – who like Boehner is a from Ohio – has had, at least until recently, an extremely close relationship with the Speaker.
At the same time, Syracuse Republican Rep. Hanna harshly criticized the GOP, arguing leadership has gone too far in deferring to the demands of conservatives.
“I have to say that I’m frustrated by how much we — I mean the Republican Party — are willing to give deferential treatment to our extremes in this moment in history,” Hanna told the Post-Standard.
According to Republicans, moderate members of the House GOP conference feel that Boehner, who has struggled with an often raucous and openly defiant right wing, has forced them to go along with conservative demands but has provided them little in return.
One Republican familiar with the dynamics within the GOP argued part of the difficulty for Boehner has been the fact that conservatives -- and not moderates -- have been the "squeaky wheel" within the conference, which has forced him to focus on them for much of the 112th Congress.
Rather than work with his entire conference Boehner has had to "prove to conservatives constantly that he's advocating for them and not screwing them behind their backs," the Republican said.
Boehner remains deeply popular within his conference, and despite the frustration of moderates he faces virtually no chance of an effort oust him as Speaker.
Although a spokesman for Boehner declined to comment, one Republican lawmaker privately downplayed Hanna's complaints, noting that pushing back against leadership is a favored past time of lawmakers in swing districts like Hanna's.
Nevertheless, Republicans acknowledged that unhappiness with leadership amongst the moderate ranks has been growing for months. Earlier this year LaTourette and the chamber’s “Old Bulls” – a group of old-line appropriators and other dealmakers – openly broke with Boehner over his efforts to reshape federal transportation spending.
And the decision by Majority Leader Eric Cantor to schedule several votes on abortion, reaffirming that the nation’s motto is, in fact, “In God We Trust” and other social issues has angered moderates for more than a year.
“Leadership told us that the ‘get out of town’ week messaging was ‘stop the tax hike.’ It baffles many of us that they would muddy that messaging by scheduling an abortion bill vote,” one Republican told Buzzfeed Friday of the decision to hold another abortion vote.
Still, moderate dissatisfaction appears to have been far worse than had been thought – so much so, in his interview with the Post-Standard Hanna went so far as to say that “I would say that the friends I have in the Democratic Party I find ... much more congenial — a little less anger.”
This has been brewing since the mid-term elections. Apparently, half the party is like that obsessed girlfriend that always complains that you don't spend enough time with her, while you're out spending time with her. We've seen the same thing when Obama takes a traditional GOP stance (normally on security) where suddenly he hasn't gone far enough.
|
On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears.
Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity?
|
On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity?
I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
|
On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this.
|
On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
There are very obvious factors, like institutional racism and much stronger national movements against blacks. As recent as the 60s, there were separate schools specifically for blacks that were underfunded and had the one goal of keeping them on a lower rung of American society.
Asians, on the other hand, went through hardships like any other noticeable immigrant group. Certainly, there are specific examples where they get singled out for some of the worst treatment, but those are, for the most part, isolated cases. Part of that comes from the ambiguity and non-uniform stance on Asians as a whole. For example, you get chunks of the population who hate Japanese but not Chinese, but then can't readily tell the difference between them. Just about the only institutional, nationwide (U.S) human rights violation that any Asian culture has experienced in the past 100 years is during WWII with internment camps.
|
On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own".
In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B?
I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention.
|
On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
"Complicating factors", as in "reasons that would explain the difference in average income better than culture ever could"?
A response to what? You're not backing up your claim with anything, why would anyone have to go through the trouble of trying to disprove it when you haven't even tried to back it up in the first place? Start by defining "culture" and giving me a social science study indicating that culture has the impact you attribute to it, and then we'll be able to have this discussion.
|
On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this.
I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals.
|
On August 01 2012 11:17 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. There are very obvious factors, like institutional racism and much stronger national movements against blacks. As recent as the 60s, there were separate schools specifically for blacks that were underfunded and had the one goal of keeping them on a lower rung of American society. Asians, on the other hand, went through hardships like any other noticeable immigrant group. Certainly, there are specific examples where they get singled out for some of the worst treatment, but those are, for the most part, isolated cases. Part of that comes from the ambiguity and non-uniform stance on Asians as a whole. For example, you get chunks of the population who hate Japanese but not Chinese, but then can't readily tell the difference between them. Just about the only institutional, nationwide (U.S) human rights violation that any Asian culture has experienced in the past 100 years is during WWII with internment camps.
Actually, one can argue that racism against Asians was even more institutionalized against Asians post-Civil War than against blacks. Go look up how many laws were passed at the federal level that limited the rights of Asians, ranging from prohibiting their ownership of real property to preventing them from nationalizing here. I posted a nice link a few pages back that summarizes what you probably have missed out on in your history education.
|
Here, let me help y'all out with some of the more remarkable examples of discrimination against Asians:
1871: The Queue Ordinance of San Francisco is enacted specifically to target the Chinese custom of wearing queues. It requires that all prisoners in San Francisco jails to have their hair cut to no more than one inch long. Chinese throughout the city are summarily arrested on miscellaneous trumped-up charges and their hair is cut off.
1872: All ethnic Chinese are barred from owning real estate or business licenses in California.
1876: The Supreme Order of Caucasians is formed in Sacramento, California, with a primary focus on running the Chinese out of the US. It quickly grows to 64 chapters called “camps” statewide with about 5,000 members.
1877: Dennis Kearney is elected Secretary of the newly formed Workingman's Party of California (not to be confused with the Workingmen's Party!), and leads violent attacks on the Chinese. Speaking publicly at the old Sand Lot near City Hall, he issues denunciations of the Central Pacific which employs large numbers of Chinese, and advocates vigilante action against both bosses and Chinese people.
1878: A circuit court in California rules in In re Ah Yup that Chinese are not eligible for naturalization because they are of the Mongolian race and not Caucasian.
1882: The US Senate and House of Representatives passes a US Federal Law called the Chinese Exclusion Act. Congress acts quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, as well as barring all ethnic Chinese from acquiring citizenship through naturalization for the next 10 years.
1889: In Chae Chan Ping v. United States, the Supreme Court rules that all ethnic Chinese, which the government deems inassimilable, can be barred from entry into the US, superseding all prior treaties with China.
1893: The Geary act is amended to make it harder for Chinese businessmen to enter the US.
1898: Hawaiian Chinese are barred from entering the mainland of the US, even though they have been there for generations.
1898: The precedent is set by a court for denying all American-born Chinese re-entry and citizenship due to their ethnicity. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Gresham-Yang Treaty of 1894 is reversed. Wong, a Chinese born in San Francisco, who had previously been granted a re-entry permit in 1890, “upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States” finds himself detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs in 1895 when he returns from yet another visit to China. This time, he is denied entry on the grounds that “although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America,” he is “not a citizen thereof” by virtue of his mother and father “being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China,” “and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person.”
1902: The Geary Act, an extension of the Chinese Exclusion Act, is again renewed for 10 years — all Chinese are barred from entry and naturalization. Chinese residents are required to present themselves for registration to obtain resident certificates. A number of Chinese are deported.
1904: All Chinese are barred from entry or citizenship through naturalization in all US territories.
1904: The Geary Act is amended, extended for an indefinite term — all Chinese are barred from entry and naturalization for the foreseeable future.
1913: The California Alien Land Law is passed, in response to increasingly successful Asian farmers, prohibiting all Asian immigrants from owning land or property, permitting them maximum three-year leases at a time.
1917: The Asiatic Barred Zone Act (also known as the Immigration Act of 1917) is passed in Congress, to exclude immigrants from South or Southeast Asia.
http://www.zakkeith.com/articles,blogs,forums/anti-Chinese-persecution-in-the-USA-history-timeline.htm
|
On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals.
It is because you might be a bit confused about Asian immigration, or at best you're mixing two groups together. While some Asians certainly started out in the States in unfavorable situations similar to those faced by African-Americans at that time, the vast majority of the so-called "model minority Asians" you see dominating the Ivy leagues and such are from a different wave of immigration. My father had graduated from the best university in Taiwan and came to Florida for his Ph.D program in the 1980s, and it would be extremely insulting to compare my future potential with that of a Vietnamese refugee in the 1960s. It's two different things. I don't think I'm that much smarter or my cultural heritage helped me to become successful while the black kid in the projects failed because his culture sucks. I started off on much better footing than he did, because my parents came to the states already advantaged compared to many immigrant groups.
The examples you're speaking of are perfect examples of institutionalized discrimination against Asians, and I don't think it helps your case very much. In fact, as a result of those policies, it was very had for Asians to "make it" at the time. A majority of the Asians making it now are completely different from the Asians back then, and it's not because our culture made us that much smarter. It's because the U.S. became somewhat less racist, and (most of) those that were able to make it to the States in the 80s were fairly well off in the first place.
To be sure, I think there are *some* aspects of so-called Asian culture and so-called Black culture that make a difference, all else being equal - for example, emphasis on education certainly will provide some better prospects, but certainly not to the degree that you're talking about.
I think you're misreading history to further your *own* ideals, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that you're simply a bit uninformed on this.
|
If Harry reid is talking out of his ass....
WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."
Source
|
On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
|
On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals.
At the risk of making this worse, I'll take a swing at it. I'm shocked fewer people ever point this out, but institutional racism has very little to do with this. American history is stained with its poor treatment of Asian immigrants just as it is with its awful history of slavery and discrimination against blacks.
But the piece that you're missing or overlooking is selection bias. Asian-Americans by and large are self-selected immigrants who chose to come to the United States and perhaps as importantly, in general they are immigrants that the United States wanted. When the US embassy hands out visas and green cards in Asia, it doesn't hand them out to random people or by lottery. It selects with a heavy bias towards people who are well-educated (especially engineering or medicine) or have rare skills (e.g. Olympic athletes). It's not surprising that the children of these kinds of people are also well-educated and wealthier than average.
By contrast, the African ancestors of most blacks in the US were selected for very different reasons. Many were seized or sold as part of the slave trade. In more recent times, African immigrants are similarly selected to Asians by US embassies and those people are far better educated than "normal" (e.g. Barack Obama's dad).
Now, that's a big generalization. There may be very specific reasons why a Korean family who opens a liquor store in LA can do in 15 years what a black family could not in the century since being freed from slavery and destine their children to a good middle-upper class life. But I don't think you can or should always fall back on institutional racism as a reason. It certainly exists to a degree but most people are responsible for their own position in life.
|
On August 01 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Harry reid is talking out of his ass.... Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars." Source
Sorry, but Defacer beat you to it 2 pages ago.
Well, looks like there's definitely something shady going on here.
|
crap.
Shady or brilliant move on the Democrats part, as Romney can't prove it's a lie unless he releases 10 years worth of returns which he refuses. He refuses to release even another year.
|
On August 01 2012 11:45 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals. It is because you might be a bit confused about Asian immigration, or at best you're mixing two groups together. While some Asians certainly started out in the States in unfavorable situations similar to those faced by African-Americans at that time, the vast majority of the so-called "model minority Asians" you see dominating the Ivy leagues and such are from a different wave of immigration. My father had graduated from the best university in Taiwan and came to Florida for his Ph.D program in the 1980s, and it would be extremely insulting to compare my future potential with that of a Vietnamese refugee in the 1960s. It's two different things. I don't think I'm that much smarter or my cultural heritage helped me to become successful while the black kid in the projects failed because his culture sucks. I started off on much better footing than he did, because my parents came to the states already advantaged compared to many immigrant groups. The examples you're speaking of are perfect examples of institutionalized discrimination against Asians, and I don't think it helps your case very much. In fact, as a result of those policies, it was very had for Asians to "make it" at the time. A majority of the Asians making it now are completely different from the Asians back then, and it's not because our culture made us that much smarter. It's because the U.S. became somewhat less racist, and (most of) those that were able to make it to the States in the 80s were fairly well off in the first place. To be sure, I think there are *some* aspects of so-called Asian culture and so-called Black culture that make a difference, all else being equal - for example, emphasis on education certainly will provide some better prospects, but certainly not to the degree that you're talking about. I think you're misreading history to further your *own* ideals, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that you're simply a bit uninformed on this.
Yes, there are some very good points raised here -- particularly the point about the Asian immigrants who are succeeding today possibly not having any relation to the initial waves of Asian immigrants. Honestly, I don't know whether this is the case or whether the "original" Asian immigrants have had the same problems as African Americans. I would be curious to find out.
As for your comments about the "model minority Asians," I definitely agree that they're out there but I find it hard to believe that they constitute the majority of "successful" Asians in the US. For example, I can't imagine that there's enough of them to fill up the University of California school system the way Asians have. Also, I don't think that the wealth of the few is a dispositive explanation for the differences between Blacks and Asians either. Pretty much every immigrant that came to the US started off predominantly poor, and almost all have worked their way up and integrated into society.
|
On August 01 2012 11:43 xDaunt wrote:Here, let me help y'all out with some of the more remarkable examples of discrimination against Asians: Show nested quote + 1871: The Queue Ordinance of San Francisco is enacted specifically to target the Chinese custom of wearing queues. It requires that all prisoners in San Francisco jails to have their hair cut to no more than one inch long. Chinese throughout the city are summarily arrested on miscellaneous trumped-up charges and their hair is cut off.
1872: All ethnic Chinese are barred from owning real estate or business licenses in California.
1876: The Supreme Order of Caucasians is formed in Sacramento, California, with a primary focus on running the Chinese out of the US. It quickly grows to 64 chapters called “camps” statewide with about 5,000 members.
1877: Dennis Kearney is elected Secretary of the newly formed Workingman's Party of California (not to be confused with the Workingmen's Party!), and leads violent attacks on the Chinese. Speaking publicly at the old Sand Lot near City Hall, he issues denunciations of the Central Pacific which employs large numbers of Chinese, and advocates vigilante action against both bosses and Chinese people.
1878: A circuit court in California rules in In re Ah Yup that Chinese are not eligible for naturalization because they are of the Mongolian race and not Caucasian.
1882: The US Senate and House of Representatives passes a US Federal Law called the Chinese Exclusion Act. Congress acts quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, as well as barring all ethnic Chinese from acquiring citizenship through naturalization for the next 10 years.
1889: In Chae Chan Ping v. United States, the Supreme Court rules that all ethnic Chinese, which the government deems inassimilable, can be barred from entry into the US, superseding all prior treaties with China.
1893: The Geary act is amended to make it harder for Chinese businessmen to enter the US.
1898: Hawaiian Chinese are barred from entering the mainland of the US, even though they have been there for generations.
1898: The precedent is set by a court for denying all American-born Chinese re-entry and citizenship due to their ethnicity. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Gresham-Yang Treaty of 1894 is reversed. Wong, a Chinese born in San Francisco, who had previously been granted a re-entry permit in 1890, “upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States” finds himself detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs in 1895 when he returns from yet another visit to China. This time, he is denied entry on the grounds that “although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America,” he is “not a citizen thereof” by virtue of his mother and father “being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China,” “and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person.”
1902: The Geary Act, an extension of the Chinese Exclusion Act, is again renewed for 10 years — all Chinese are barred from entry and naturalization. Chinese residents are required to present themselves for registration to obtain resident certificates. A number of Chinese are deported.
1904: All Chinese are barred from entry or citizenship through naturalization in all US territories.
1904: The Geary Act is amended, extended for an indefinite term — all Chinese are barred from entry and naturalization for the foreseeable future.
1913: The California Alien Land Law is passed, in response to increasingly successful Asian farmers, prohibiting all Asian immigrants from owning land or property, permitting them maximum three-year leases at a time.
1917: The Asiatic Barred Zone Act (also known as the Immigration Act of 1917) is passed in Congress, to exclude immigrants from South or Southeast Asia.
http://www.zakkeith.com/articles,blogs,forums/anti-Chinese-persecution-in-the-USA-history-timeline.htm
That's really nothing compared to the laws preventing blacks from doing all kinds of things ALL ACROSS AMERICA. Most of this comes from California, or Congress preventing immigration. Both were wrong, but blacks were fighting in the 60s to be seen as equal human beings.
|
On August 01 2012 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
crap.
Shady or brilliant move on the Democrats part, as Romney can't prove it's a lie unless he releases 10 years worth of returns which he refuses. He refuses to release even another year.
It's very similar to the entire birther thing where Obama had to show his birth certificate. The burden of prof is on Romney to show his returns now. Quite clever by Harry Reid.
If Romney's returns are good, no harm. If he has something to hide, well hello 4 more years for Obama.
-----
Blacks vs. Asians
Very different. Blacks have been in America for much longer than Asians, and the laws and such restricting their rights and freedoms were much more ingrained. Its gotten to the point where African Americans are just that-- African Americans. Asians can still be divided into Taiwanese (yay go me), Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Filipino, etc. There have been several waves of Asian immigration as well, and you can see patterns in social status based on that.
For example, my parents came from two of the best universities in Taiwan and came here for grad school. We live in predominantly white (richer) neighborhood. On the other hand, the Vietnamese who landed here after the war are more clustered in the east part of the city, which is predominantly black and poorer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
