Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country.
Someone's getting Saturday Night Live comedian Tina Fey confused with Sarah Palin.
And I refuse to believe Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain's campaign significant votes -- to the point that it might have cost him the election. She was not a good candidate. She was the very definition of abrasive, talking about "real" Americans, so what was her upside? Intellectualism? Entrepreneurial spirit? She was only just a Governor, the only thing differentiating trait being her personality. And yet her personality sucked. There were obviously much more qualified candidates, to such a degree that McCain picking her became an issue in itself. It was the opposite of what people expected of McCain. It was political pandering, where McCain was always the guy who was above political pandering. He compromised his greatest asset, the one thing independents loved him for, and trivialized the position of the VP in the process. Just my opinion on that.
Sarah Palin garnered way more conservative votes than you give her credit for. That's been the formula for quite a while now. Run a moderate, alienate the conservative side of the Republican base with his views, pick a conservative VP, have a shot at the election. My enthusiasm at casting a vote against Obama in 2000 rose a level above 0.00 when he chose Palin as a running mate. I voted for his VP and sighed that it was McCain that made it to the top of the Republican ticket.
And lest we forget, the Russia/Alaska originating remarks were on her national security experience as governor, being briefed more regularly than other governors since her state's national guard (Governor sits as Commander in Chief) is the first line of defense against threats from Russia and the far east. Way off topic, but as we get to VP picks, Romney could do worse. Sarah Palin's flop when McCain fed her to Katie Couric and bombed the interview pretty much puts her out of the running in my opinion.
As far as what I see as possible VP picks, I could get behind Christie, Ryan, Rubio, Gingrich and Rice. The others from the tweet are much less attractive to me.
P.S.
Nah, despite all of her baggage, Palin is what gave McCain a fighting chance in unusually adverse election conditions. He blew it by fumbling the ball when the economic crisis hit.
Exactly. I'd say McCain blew it with that and Palin blew it with the interview performance.
The far right nub jobs are voting Republican no matter what. The Republicans don't need to rally their base they need to win over independents, right wing Democrats, left wing Republicans and minorities.
You do need to rally them though. They are the most loyal supporters-- the ones who show up to volunteer their time and money to get the job done on the ground. You need a strong ground game to win elections in America.
On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect.
How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation?
Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there.
Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't.
Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect.
How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation?
Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there.
Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't.
Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now.
In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry.
I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
Okay.
London, no big deal, imo. But, would have liked to see more tact out of a guy who is potentially a US president. It's not the same as you have portrayed it. He was asked a very broad question; nothing wrong with focusing on the positive in response to describe an effort made by a close ally on an important event.
Poland, no big deal. But needs to discipline the guy who did make the mistake.
Israel... let's just gloss over a history of Western support for the state of Israel and look for "cultural differences". Laughable at best.
"At a fundraiser with Jewish donors in Jerusalem, Romney had said their culture was part of what had allowed them to be more economically successful than the nearby Palestinians. He made no mention of the fact that Israel has controlled the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem since capturing them in the 1967 war, a presence that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund both say limits the economy's potential for growth there.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
But it does matter. The tour was intended to show Romney wasn't clueless when it comes to diplomacy, and it has done the complete opposite. It might not represent his policies fully, but it reflects on his world view and the kind of president he will be if he wins. The bush 2.0 stamp does seem far off: both weren't very interested in foreign affairs, both ran without a real platform, both believe in american supremacy and they have essentially the same advisors.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
If you are a candidate for presidency, and you are embarking on a world tour to prove you are capable of working with other countries and making good foreign policies, especially when the other party is harping on your lack of experience, I think a little forethought over pure honesty is useful.
Jon Stewart of the Daily show said it best - When the interviewer asked Romney about the readiness, all Romney had to say was "Yes, they seem ready." No need for jumping up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. A concise, relatively non-committal answer that cannot create controversy.
In Israel, it's perfectly fine to compliment Israel, if his sole intention was to garner Israel's support without care for anything else. But the fact of the matter is that Israel and Palestine relations are important to a lot of people - especially when we have time and time again tried to get Palestine/Hamas to play nice in that region.
Is it a cheap headline? At this point, yes - it's a little too overblown by now, but the international community doesn't really have a great view of Mitt Romney.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
Okay.
London, no big deal, imo. But, would have liked to see more tact out of a guy who is potentially a US president. It's not the same as you have portrayed it. He was asked a very broad question; nothing wrong with focusing on the positive in response to describe an effort made by a close ally on an important event.
Poland, no big deal. But needs to discipline the guy who did make the mistake.
Israel... let's just gloss over a history of Western support for the state of Israel and look for "cultural differences". Laughable at best.
"At a fundraiser with Jewish donors in Jerusalem, Romney had said their culture was part of what had allowed them to be more economically successful than the nearby Palestinians. He made no mention of the fact that Israel has controlled the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem since capturing them in the 1967 war, a presence that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund both say limits the economy's potential for growth there.
Hey Russians, you`re bitches that eploited the surronunding nations to your favour, and still fail to get anywhere near to europe.
Now, Give me the monies
Seriously, people need to learn the fact, that when you`re guest, there are things that better not get mentioned. Especially considering it was a friendly visit, not the visit to come and bash the Israilians.
Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country.
Someone's getting Saturday Night Live comedian Tina Fey confused with Sarah Palin.
Erm, Palin didn't say she could see Russia from her house, but she did say "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska" in response to a question about the insight into Russian actions that the proximity of Alaska with Russia gave her. It was an idiotic response, since Charles Gibson was obviously not asking whether she could literally see what was going on in Russia. You're trying to paint Sarah Palin as someone that was mostly only viewed negatively because of her interview with Katie Couric when in reality her incompetence showed whenever she opened her mouth on policy (and that's still the case).
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...
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.
Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society.
Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits).
The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point.
No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US.
You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent).
On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote: As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.
Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare.
Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system?
His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government.
If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech.
At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success.
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote: As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement.
In case you haven't been following the campaign, Romney has very clearly put the emphasis on denouncing "socialized healthcare" and government intervention in healthcare. That he would praise a healthcare system that is socialized and that features government intervention in healthcare is therefore contradictory, as is correctly pointed out in Ezra Klein's article.
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Similarly Obama can advocate getting rid of some Bush tax cuts while advocating to keep others. There's no contradiction there either because they are different things.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing - the comparison isn't valid at all. If Obama was praising the tax system of another state which gave biggest tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires than the US, while simultaneously continuing to advocate taxing millionaires and billionaires at a higher level, then you'd have a point - but that's not the case.
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).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you have a logical argument to make, or are you simply telling me that the truth of my statements offends you?
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).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
And your problem with that is, what, it's offensive? You haven't challenged the logic of my post in any way.
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).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs.
It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims.
Oh, look, yet another person who doesn't actually dispute my premise, but merely finds it offensive.
User was warned for this post
Edit: Image macro removed as per mod warning.
That's a gnarly case of rationalization going on here. One of the best I've seen in a while. Obviously, supported by an astute understanding of genetics (and thus "science"). 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.
Maybe smarter slaves acted more obedient. Or maybe, slave-owners actually wanted smarter slaves who would be better at their work. Or maybe that, even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence - let alone in the era before emancipation. Or maybe, environment plays an equal, if not more important, role.
On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect.
How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation?
Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there.
Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't.
Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now.
In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry.
I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do.
If you're actually using those genetic differences to explain those disparities between the 'races' then yes that is racism and it is not supported by any science whatsoever. It is not coherent or logical at all.
Sorry, I thought you actually understood the science. In that case the accusations of offense and racism are totally justified.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
But it does matter. The tour was intended to show Romney wasn't clueless when it comes to diplomacy, and it has done the complete opposite. It might not represent his policies fully, but it reflects on his world view and the kind of president he will be if he wins. The bush 2.0 stamp does seem far off: both weren't very interested in foreign affairs, both ran without a real platform, both believe in american supremacy and they have essentially the same advisors.
I know that it matters, but when we really see at what he did, he has barely done a thing.
1) He gave a negative response to a question that, had he been more political, he would have recognized as one that demanded a positive, upbeat answer.
2) An underling made a mistake, can't really blame Romney for that.
3) He praises Israel. Not exactly a mistake when it comes to politics. Americans like and support Israel. Had he bashed Israel, that would have been a serious political mistake.
I keep hearing people talk about how they want real news, not this cheap storytelling. Well, this is exactly that. He didn't make any major mistakes, none deserving the backlash he is getting.
I am not a Romney guy, I still think Obama is better, and I generally don't dislike mainstream media that much, but even I can see this is just cheap reporting.
When you look at what people are saying, and then look at the facts, you can conclude that the reaction is just ridiculous.
Yes, it is a bad press moment for the Romney campaign, I won't deny the obvious facts, but the outrage is just ridiculously bloated. The press reaction, compared to what actually happened, is out of any proportion.
Yes, Romney lost this press cycle, but I would argue that it is hardly by his own doing.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
Okay.
London, no big deal, imo. But, would have liked to see more tact out of a guy who is potentially a US president. It's not the same as you have portrayed it. He was asked a very broad question; nothing wrong with focusing on the positive in response to describe an effort made by a close ally on an important event.
Poland, no big deal. But needs to discipline the guy who did make the mistake.
Israel... let's just gloss over a history of Western support for the state of Israel and look for "cultural differences". Laughable at best.
"At a fundraiser with Jewish donors in Jerusalem, Romney had said their culture was part of what had allowed them to be more economically successful than the nearby Palestinians. He made no mention of the fact that Israel has controlled the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem since capturing them in the 1967 war, a presence that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund both say limits the economy's potential for growth there.
Hey Russians, you`re bitches that eploited the surronunding nations to your favour, and still fail to get anywhere near to europe.
Now, Give me the monies
Seriously, people need to learn the fact, that when you`re guest, there are things that better not get mentioned. Especially considering it was a friendly visit, not the visit to come and bash the Israilians.
Nobody expected him to bash Israel, it's more that it's incredibly misleading at best and indicative of a screw loose at worst to chalk up Palestine's lack of flourishing compared to Israel as mostly cultural differences.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
Wait a minute now. At first glance you might say that Israel has a culture which allowed it to prosper compared to other Middle Eastern nations, because it is more prosperous than some of them. But then you start to pay more attention to the issue. First of all that's not what Romney said. He said that Israel's culture is superior to that of the Palestinian Territories, because of GDP. That's not a very solid point to make, if you look at how much foreign aid Israel has received compared to Palestine (plogamer mentioned that). Then there's the fact that Israel has set up land as well as sea blockade, making it near impossible for the Palestinians to ex/import anything which would allow their economy to grow. You also have them steadily eroding Palestinian land (taking it away) to make room for Israeli settlers or as safety zones, demolishing villages in the process. Even if you weren't comparing it to Palestine, the argument would make no sense, since there are plenty of Middle Eastern nations with much greater GDP per capita than Israel, mainly rich, oil exporting countries. According to Romney's logic, their culture would now be superior to Israel's. It doesn't work this way. You can't make a judgement like that without examining the history of the country (where is it moving and why?) while basing it on GDP.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
Wait a minute now. At first glance you might say that Israel as a culture that allowed it to prosper compared to other Middle Eastern nations, because it is more prosperous than some of them. But then you start to pay more attention to the issue. First of all that's not what Romney said. He said that Israel's culture is superior to that of the Palestinian Territories, because of GDP. That's not a very solid point to make, if you look at how much foreign aid Israel has received compared to Palestine (plogamer mentioned that). Then there's the fact that Israel has set up land as well as sea blockade, making it near impossible for the Palestinians to ex/import anything which would allow their economy to grow. You also have them steadily eroding Palestinian land (taking it away) to make room for Israeli settlers or as safety zones, demolishing villages in the process. Even if you weren't comparing it to Palestine, the argument would make no sense, since there are plenty of Middle Eastern nations with much greater GDP per capita than Israel, mainly rich, oil exporting countries. According to Romney's logic, their culture would now be superior to Israel's. It doesn't work this way. You can't make a judgement like that without examining the history of the country (where is it moving and why?) while basing it on GDP.
In Israel he does the exact thing that people, apparently, wanted him to do in London.
In London he gives a straight answer, he does pay lip-service, he says what he feels.
In Israel he praises Israel, regardless of any sense of reality.
The guy can't win. He is honest in England? Fuck him. He panders in Israel? Fuck him.
I still wouldn't call his comments in Israel an actual mistake. Siding with the Palestinians would have been a real political mistake. You can attack his comments on whether they paint an accurate portrait, but you can't say they are a political mistake considering Israel is pretty popular in America.
I think speaking of superior and inferior cultures is extremely unpopular, because it is a throwback to old views people had, and it brushes up against racism. So, using those charged words is always bad when aiming for office, but praising Israel is a good move when you want to be president of the US.
To be honest i dont think Romney and his crew are producing much more facepalm moments than any other american establishment in regard of foreign policy. Even Obama has his huge moment elaborating about "Polish Deathcamps" when decorating Jan Karski (post mortem) with Presidential Medal of Freedom.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
Wait a minute now. At first glance you might say that Israel as a culture that allowed it to prosper compared to other Middle Eastern nations, because it is more prosperous than some of them. But then you start to pay more attention to the issue. First of all that's not what Romney said. He said that Israel's culture is superior to that of the Palestinian Territories, because of GDP. That's not a very solid point to make, if you look at how much foreign aid Israel has received compared to Palestine (plogamer mentioned that). Then there's the fact that Israel has set up land as well as sea blockade, making it near impossible for the Palestinians to ex/import anything which would allow their economy to grow. You also have them steadily eroding Palestinian land (taking it away) to make room for Israeli settlers or as safety zones, demolishing villages in the process. Even if you weren't comparing it to Palestine, the argument would make no sense, since there are plenty of Middle Eastern nations with much greater GDP per capita than Israel, mainly rich, oil exporting countries. According to Romney's logic, their culture would now be superior to Israel's. It doesn't work this way. You can't make a judgement like that without examining the history of the country (where is it moving and why?) while basing it on GDP.
In Israel he does the exact thing that people, apparently, wanted him to do in London.
In London he gives a straight answer, he does pay lip-service, he says what he feels.
In Israel he praises Israel, regardless of any sense of reality.
The guy can't win. He is honest in England? Fuck him. He panders in Israel? Fuck him.
I still wouldn't call his comments in Israel an actual mistake. Siding with the Palestinians would have been a real political mistake. You can attack his comments on whether they paint an accurate portrait, but you can't say they are a political mistake considering Israel is pretty popular in America.
I think speaking of superior and inferior cultures is extremely unpopular, because it is a throwback to old views people had, and it brushes up against racism. So, using those charged words is always bad when aiming for office, but praising Israel is a good move when you want to be president of the US.
Are you serious? His comment on Israel are just stupid. There are ways of sidings with people. Being idiot is not one of them. The video from the young turk says it all, does arabic countries with higher GDP than Israel have a "better culture" ? I think everybody knows the obvious response to that idiotic question. There are people on this very forum that take the side of Israel and who have better arguments than the running republican candidate for the presidency of the united state of america.
G.W. Bush - no idea about foreign politics- 2.0 :D?
People need to stop letting themselves be swept away in such trivial nonesense.
In London he said that he wasn't sure if they were ready yet. Oke, that isn't the answer people wanted him to give, they wanted him to jump up and down like a monkey and give two thumbs up. For a change the guy gives what seems like an honest answer instead of giving the populist reply, and they bash him.
In Poland he wasn't even the guy to make the mistake.
In Israel he said that Israel flourished as a result of its culture, whereas its neighbours struggled because of their culture. It isn't a popular position, but there does seem to be a point to it. Israel does outperform its neighbours to such a degree that you have to wonder what the deal is. There has to be some systemic difference that explains those differences, and culture can indeed be one of those.
Does it reflect on his foreign politics? No. It reflects on people's need for cheap headlines and simple narratives.
It is hard to not be amused when you see people complain that politicians are liars, but when they give their honest opinion, they get bashed for it.
Wait a minute now. At first glance you might say that Israel as a culture that allowed it to prosper compared to other Middle Eastern nations, because it is more prosperous than some of them. But then you start to pay more attention to the issue. First of all that's not what Romney said. He said that Israel's culture is superior to that of the Palestinian Territories, because of GDP. That's not a very solid point to make, if you look at how much foreign aid Israel has received compared to Palestine (plogamer mentioned that). Then there's the fact that Israel has set up land as well as sea blockade, making it near impossible for the Palestinians to ex/import anything which would allow their economy to grow. You also have them steadily eroding Palestinian land (taking it away) to make room for Israeli settlers or as safety zones, demolishing villages in the process. Even if you weren't comparing it to Palestine, the argument would make no sense, since there are plenty of Middle Eastern nations with much greater GDP per capita than Israel, mainly rich, oil exporting countries. According to Romney's logic, their culture would now be superior to Israel's. It doesn't work this way. You can't make a judgement like that without examining the history of the country (where is it moving and why?) while basing it on GDP.
In Israel he does the exact thing that people, apparently, wanted him to do in London.
In London he gives a straight answer, he does pay lip-service, he says what he feels.
In Israel he praises Israel, regardless of any sense of reality.
The guy can't win. He is honest in England? Fuck him. He panders in Israel? Fuck him.
I still wouldn't call his comments in Israel an actual mistake. Siding with the Palestinians would have been a real political mistake. You can attack his comments on whether they paint an accurate portrait, but you can't say they are a political mistake considering Israel is pretty popular in America.
I think speaking of superior and inferior cultures is extremely unpopular, because it is a throwback to old views people had, and it brushes up against racism. So, using those charged words is always bad when aiming for office, but praising Israel is a good move when you want to be president of the US.
What makes you think he was pandering in Israel?
...
No one is saying he should side with Palestinians. My God, why is everything so black and white to you?
On August 01 2012 23:38 mijagi182 wrote: To be honest i dont think Romney and his crew are producing much more facepalm moments than any other american establishment in regard of foreign policy. Even Obama has his huge moment elaborating about "Polish Deathcamps" when decorating Jan Karski (post mortem) with Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Obama had a really positive response overall in the countries he visited before he was elected. Romney's visit had downs, no ups. Nothing much to overshadow his little gaffes.
EPT
