As you might know our friendly, innocuous, inoffensive, poutine eating, neighbors to the north have approached COVID differently than we have. Due to Canada's draconian policies we've seen pastors arrested for doing their jobs, a lumber shortage in the US made worse, and more. I want to focus on just one aspect of this situation.
Since Canada has been closed, they have banned US citizens who own property in Canada from accessing their property. I know that Canada doesn't share our constitutional protections regarding property, but doesn't the notion of a "free country" depriving property owners of access to their property seem a bit extreme? Especially when they're still expecting that all of the taxes and fees be paid.
In one case, the property is on a lake that crosses the border between Canada and the US. It's possible to take a boat across the border bypassing the border crossing stations that exist on the road entrances. Guess what Canada has done. They've installed radar and/or sonar in this lake (really all bodies of water that cross the border) and will intercept anyone who tries the water rout.
Why is this draconian border control not drawing protests? How can those folks who want increased cross border traffic with fewer restrictions sit silently by as Canada turns away everyone?
127 comments:
Why no protests? Because people aren't that stupid, perhaps? Because we recognize the difference between anti immigrant and xenophobic policies as opposed to medical necessity policies.
The real question is why would conservatives not be protesting Trump's racist and xenophobic comments/policies when he was promoting them?
But then, we know the answer to that, don't we?
I think if Canadians are crapping on our border policy, then they must answer for theirs. But certainly, one would think those among our own who've been supporting the leftist open border policy...which is what it's always been...might want to turn their attention north and make some noise on behalf of fellow citizens who own property there.
I also wonder about how Canadians feel about those who leave to come here. Are they unconcerned about spreading death and misery here, or just us spreading it there?
Ok, so it’s perfectly fine to strip property owners of the use of their property and to ban them from entering the country because it’s not Trump. Or some idiotic blather.
The bottom line is that if the US controlled their borders anywhere near as tightly as Canada, you’d be screaming like a little girl.
Despite Dan's inane wish to pretend he's justified in planting the "anti-immigrant/xenophobic" labels on Trump for securing our border, the import of disease via illegals on our southern border was mitigated because of his policies. All bets are off now, and the clown Dan stupidly pretended would be an actual improvement has proven Dan as wrong as I told him he was when he promoted Idiot Joe for the job. Wasn't a tough call to make, that's for sure.
Bullshit Coming from your mouth is still bullshit coming from your mouth no matter if you think it correct.
No bullshit here except yours. The reality is that Canada has chosen to secure their border much more tightly than the US, and you don’t seem to have a problem with that. FYI the radar/sonar thing has been going on for years.
It’s the old double standard thing. Y’all want to hold the US to a higher standard than any other country, and don’t like that being pointed out.
Strangely enough y’all bitch about human rights abuses in the US, while staying silent about the fact that the Olympics are in China, the phones y’all use and the shoes a lot of y’all wear are made with slave labor, and y’all just keep buying them.
Craig... "The reality is that Canada has chosen to secure their border much more tightly than the US, and you don’t seem to have a problem with that."
Since you rarely answer questions directly, I'll save you the dodging and provide the actual correct answers:
1. Where exactly did I complain about TEMPORARY restrictions based on covid concerns?
Oh, that's right, I never did.
2. Restricting wealthy Americans from coming to play in their second homes is not really the same as restricting poor latinos from escaping oppression, is it?
No, it's not. It's nothing like the same thing.
3. I'm not from Canada nor am I responsible for Canadian laws, am I?
No, I'm not.
The reality is that all nations that can afford to do so SHOULD allow refugees and immigrants escaping danger and starvation to enter their nations because, of course, they should. Human rights and civil liberties and all that Freedom Stuff that is so unpopular on the Right today.
The reality is that asking those who can safely afford to do so to not travel during times of a pandemic is not like restricting those seeking safety from doing so.
"For I was a stranger and you turned me away... DEPART from me, you wicked, into the fires of Gehenna..."
~Jesus.
Seriously, I never will understand this anti-immigration/refugee illness so many are afflicted with.
Well, based on Dan's arguments in a previous thread, if he calls something bullshit it's not objectively true that it is.
"1. Where exactly did I complain about TEMPORARY restrictions based on covid concerns?
Oh, that's right, I never did."
I think that's the point. Regardless of who is moving to where, this constitutes a restriction of free movement, something you insist no government has the right to impede for any reason whatsoever.
"2. Restricting wealthy Americans from coming to play in their second homes is not really the same as restricting poor latinos from escaping oppression, is it?
No, it's not. It's nothing like the same thing."
Uh...yeah...it's exactly the same thing. Both are governments restricting free movement from one point to another. That's the point at issue, and you choose to indict America for their reasons as if they were unimportant, lacking in reason and logic and designed to cause harm rather than protect their own citizens from harm. Given the low threat from covid, of the two nations, America's choice of defending their borders is far more rational and reasonable. But both are examples of the same thing you pretend is the basis of your argument: government restrictions on free movement.
"3. I'm not from Canada nor am I responsible for Canadian laws, am I?
No, I'm not."
The point is the effect on the free movement of Americans, for which you have no regard, putting your fellow citizens in a subordinate priority with regard to foreigners.
"The reality is that all nations that can afford to do so SHOULD allow refugees and immigrants escaping danger and starvation to enter their nations because, of course, they should."
The reality is that our nation has always done this, but on terms not to YOUR liking, which is perfectly fine and reasonable given your terms are moronic and puts Americans at great risk.
"Human rights and civil liberties and all that Freedom Stuff that is so unpopular on the Right today."
Not unpopular, but far better understood and more appropriately applied than is ever the case by people like you, who have no regard for your own citizens as you seek to promote yourself as more caring by spewing nonsensical positions that can't be implemented in the real world.
"The reality is that asking those who can safely afford to do so to not travel during times of a pandemic is not like restricting those seeking safety from doing so."
The reality is the vast majority of those seeking entry into our country are NOT fleeing danger and those prevented from doing so have either attempted to enter without going through proper channels, have a known criminal record or connection to nefarious groups. The reality is that there is no threat to Canadians from those seeking to visit their own properties. But imagine that...Dan doesn't care about property rights as he opposes those who trespass on their property as they cross our borders illegally.
""For I was a stranger and you turned me away... DEPART from me, you wicked, into the fires of Gehenna..."
~Jesus."
Among the many thousands of questions Dan has dodged over the years, this quote reminds me of one of them: What makes you think this quote refers to those who ignore the laws of the land they seek to enter? Our nation has always welcomed around a million a year who do so legally. If anyone is wicked, it is Dan.
"Seriously, I never will understand this anti-immigration/refugee illness so many are afflicted with."
Being one of them yourself, I'm sure it troubles you greatly. For our part, there is no such illness, and we're not "anti-immigration" nor "anti-refugee". But we understand the costs and you act on the basis of others covering those costs while you pretend you're Christian.
"1. Where exactly did I complain about TEMPORARY restrictions based on covid concerns?"
A. Canada has always maintained much tighter border security that the US.
B. Where did I ever say that you had complained about "TEMPORARY" restrictions?
"2. Restricting wealthy Americans from coming to play in their second homes is not really the same as restricting poor latinos from escaping oppression, is it? No, it's not. It's nothing like the same thing."
No it's not, and I never suggested that it is. Of course, for those of us who think private property is important, the notion of a government restricting property owners from access to their property without compensation seems a bit totalitarian. What made you assume that the person in question was "rich"? I guess letting your prejudice against those you decide are "rich" (as if you are not) isn't a problem.
"3. I'm not from Canada nor am I responsible for Canadian laws, am I?"
Your narcissism is quite impressive. I literally never connected you and Canada in any way. Your insistence that everything is always all about you is troubling.
"No, I'm not. The reality is that all nations that can afford to do so SHOULD allow refugees and immigrants escaping danger and starvation to enter their nations because, of course, they should."
If you say so.
"Human rights and civil liberties and all that Freedom Stuff that is so unpopular on the Right today."
Another unproven bullshit claim.
"The reality is that asking those who can safely afford to do so to not travel during times of a pandemic is not like restricting those seeking safety from doing so."
It's so good that you feel so comfortable telling others what they "should" do, I'm sure that all that responsibility weighs heavily on your shoulders. Because government should be able to restrict property owners from accessing their property whenever they want to, right?
If Canada's single payer health system is so spectacularly awesome, and so much better than the US system, why is Canada still locked down?
The reality is that folks like you are content to hold the US up to a significantly higher standard than other nations, and wouldn't dream of transporting a bunch of Latin American refugees up the Canadian border and demand that Canada take their fair share.
Art,
You bring up an excellent point. In a thread a while back I seem to remember Dan advocating a notion of "self determination" (I think was the term he used), where he was essentially advocating for untrammeled, unrestricted movement regardless of national, international, or state borders. He (If I remember correctly) was quite insistent that people's freedom of movement should not be restricted by petty things like national sovereignty, laws, borders, or any other nonsense.
In this thread, he seems to support Canada's draconian restrictions (as long that they attribute them to COVID), yet doesn't seem to have a problem with thousands of un tested, un vaccinated, immigrants entering the US regardless of COVID.
Double standard.
Double standard? I guess you could look at it that way. If you're not escaping harassment or oppression and just want to enjoy your summer home in another country, yes I'm fine with limitations. If you're actually escaping death and starvation, then I support such people moving in period I guess you could call that a double standard. One based on reason and Justice. But of course, we're talking about apples and oranges. Rich vacationers versus refugees escaping death.
What the hell is wrong with you all (conservatives writ large)?
Seriously. I would like you to answer to the question. Do you not see the great chasm of difference between refugees trying to survive and wealthy people enjoying their suffocation? Do you not understand the difference between Lazarus and the rich man?
Craig... "doesn't seem to have a problem with thousands of un tested, un vaccinated, immigrants entering the US regardless of COVID."
I can't tell you how strange it is for me to listen to people who love The Bible and read The Bible who seems so resistant to welcoming immigrants. Yes, as a matter of human rights and Justice, I do support immigrants coming to the US , especially refugees seeking safety and food security. Because of course I do. Who in the right mind doesn't?
Are you too saying that you want more limitations on immigrants?
And 1st come and let me clarify your additional misunderstanding. I've never said anything about not testing or vaccinating people for covid. Because I never said that, because, of course, because, don't be an idiot.
But for my understanding and the research I read, the majority of Latin-American immigrants are coming here either to escape violence or to escape poverty. If you have a family that's starving in Guatemala, princess, or escaping violence there, do you really stand opposed to them moving to the US if that's what they want to do?
If so, do you understand how monstrous that sounds on the face of it? That's not an attack. That's a sincere question. Who opposes people seeking freedom from oppression and violence or starvation?
And Craig, I know you've worked with people in nations prone to poverty, so I know it's not the case that you don't care. And to be clear, I fully support helping people find a way to safely stay in their own nations, because again, the research shows most of the time that's what they want themselves.
But time and time again, we see that immigrants are escaping violence and starvation. On what rational and Justice basis would we deny people that opportunity? On what Biblical basis?
How about this, let's say that 9 times out of 10, immigrants coming from Latin America are escaping violence and deprivation or starvation. If that was the case, in those 9 out of 10 times do you support them coming here if that's their choice? Even if we need to adapt our policies to allow for more refugees?
I just can't imagine a rational argument against that.
Some data, in case you're not aware...
https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/why-migrants-flee-central-america/34545
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2018/06/01/451474/still-refugees-people-continue-flee-violence-latin-american-countries/
Is It's the case that you to do not believe that most Immigrants coming from Latin America are coming here to escape violence and deprivation And that's why you're opposed to letting these immigrants/refugees in?
Or are you aware and just don't care?
I'd really like to know.
https://winteryknight.com/2021/07/05/new-study-10000-canadians-die-on-government-run-healthcare-
Just one more way that Canada is so much better than the US.
I haven't gotten to reading WK's post yet, but I've long aware of that problem. Sally Pipes has been talking about it for years, in fact, since her mother died while awaiting "free" health care. She paid for it with her life.
"Is It's the case that you to do not believe that most Immigrants coming from Latin America are coming here to escape violence and deprivation And that's why you're opposed to letting these immigrants/refugees in?"
First, excellent job of the topic change early in the thread. You usually take longer.
Second, as a general principal I'm not automatically opposed to "letting these immigrants/refugees in". I'm not sure that the simplistic "let them all come to the US" is the right answer though.
"Or are you aware and just don't care?"
I am aware that there are a multitude of reasons, and I certainly care about how best to deal with the issues that drive this situation.
"I can't tell you how strange it is for me to listen to people who love The Bible and read The Bible who seems so resistant to welcoming immigrants. Yes, as a matter of human rights and Justice, I do support immigrants coming to the US , especially refugees seeking safety and food security. Because of course I do. Who in the right mind doesn't?"
Again, well played. Impassioned plea, "subtle" attacks on those who don't agree with you by suggesting they aren't as in love with scripture as you are, and entirely ignoring what I actually said. I was specifically addressing your endorsement of Canada's draconian restrictions that you falsely attribute to COVID, with your complete lack of concern (or at least for addressing the concern) in allowing thousands of untested, unvaccinated, immigrants into the US during a pandemic.
"Are you too saying that you want more limitations on immigrants?"
I'm saying that there should be limits on immigration. I'm also saying that allowing thousands of untested, unvaccinated immigrates into the US during a pandemic is stupid.
"And 1st come and let me clarify your additional misunderstanding. I've never said anything about not testing or vaccinating people for covid. Because I never said that, because, of course, because, don't be an idiot."
Yet you don't let that stop you. Well done. I understand that you've been silent on allowing untested/unvaccinated people in by the thousands, while supporting COVID restrictions on US citizens.
"But for my understanding and the research I read, the majority of Latin-American immigrants are coming here either to escape violence or to escape poverty. If you have a family that's starving in Guatemala, princess, or escaping violence there, do you really stand opposed to them moving to the US if that's what they want to do?"
Excellent try at dodging the reality of what I actually said.
Strangely enough, I'm not opposed (in principle) to allowing them to move to the US. Of course, I also don't think we live in a world where people get to do what "they want to do" without restriction and completely unfettered. On the actual topic, you don't seem bothered that Canada's draconian immigration laws and enforcement would preclude this family from doing "what they want to do". Strange double standard.
"If so, do you understand how monstrous that sounds on the face of it?"
Really? Suggesting that there might be alternatives to simply allowing anyone who "wants to do" something is "monstrous"? Or suggesting that there are more options than allowing mass migration of untested/unvaccinated people by the thousands during a global pandemic isn't smart is "monstrous"?
I guess when you depart from what I actually said and move into your own fantasy world, it's a little easier for you.
"That's not an attack. That's a sincere question."
Bullshit. If it was a sincere question, you'd have avoided the pejorative.
"Who opposes people seeking freedom from oppression and violence or starvation?"
Apparently the Canadians do. Which is the topic of this post. I suspect there are plenty of other countries that have much more draconian immigration laws than the US, are they "monstrous"?
"And Craig, I know you've worked with people in nations prone to poverty, so I know it's not the case that you don't care. And to be clear, I fully support helping people find a way to safely stay in their own nations, because again, the research shows most of the time that's what they want themselves. But time and time again, we see that immigrants are escaping violence and starvation. On what rational and Justice basis would we deny people that opportunity?"
As per the topic of this post, you'd have to ask Canada, not me.
"On what Biblical basis?"
I've never advocated setting national policy or law in a secular democracy based on one person's or group's interpretation of some texts they've used as proof texts. So I would say that there is no way to argue for a "Biblical basis" of Canadian immigration law.
How about staying on topic?
"Double standard? I guess you could look at it that way."
Well when someone advocates one standard for one country, while not advocating for the same standard for another country, I don't see any more accurate term. Especially when one demands that others be held to a standard of behavior that they exempt themselves from.
"If you're not escaping harassment or oppression and just want to enjoy your summer home in another country, yes I'm fine with limitations."
Excellent, it's so refreshing to see you finally come out on the side of denying property owners their rights without compensation. I always suspected that you were pro oppression in certain circumstances.
"If you're actually escaping death and starvation, then I support such people moving in period I guess you could call that a double standard. One based on reason and Justice. But of course, we're talking about apples and oranges."
"Rich vacationers versus refugees escaping death."
Again, please demonstrate that the people in question (a pastor married to a missionary) who have inherited a small rustic cabin from their family are: a) "Rich", and b) worthy of having a government deny them access to their privately owned property.
But I do love how you show your prejudice against those who you decide are "Rich" and worthy of derision.
"What the hell is wrong with you all (conservatives writ large)?"
Beyond the normal things like a sin nature that is common to everyone, not much in particular.
"Seriously. I would like you to answer to the question."
"Do you not see the great chasm of difference between refugees trying to survive and wealthy people enjoying their suffocation?"
What the hell does this even mean? How much further of topic do you plan to go?
"Do you not understand the difference between Lazarus and the rich man?"
Why yes, I believe I do. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the Canadian government denying people their rights has anything to do with people in Hell.
Marshal... "this constitutes a restriction of free movement, something you insist no government has the right to impede for any reason whatsoever."
Craig... "it's so refreshing to see you finally come out on the side of denying property owners their rights without compensation..."
It's worse. I support firefighters temporarily stopping homeowners from entering their burning homes. I support police agencies keeping people out of neighborhoods devastated by storms and tornadoes temporarily. I support reasonable restrictions on a Temporary bases and a variety of instances. Because I'm not an idiot. There are times when reasonable restrictions for temporary time are acceptable. Because of course they are.
Don't be morons.
If it were just the case where someone wants to enter their burning home and it didn't affect anyone else, then that would be one level of stupid. But firefighters are obliged try to save lives.. Breaking these temporary restrictions causes harm to other people. Conservatives have to get over their own ill-perceived self interest and the desire to always get their own little way like infants.
Craig... "Well when someone advocates one standard for one country, while not advocating for the same standard for another country, I don't see any more accurate term."
Where precisely did I suggest Canada should have a different standard than I'm arguing for in the US?
Can you admit to the reality that I never said that or suggested it?
As to advocating for policies in other nations, the reality is I have not spoken much about policy in Canada, or in Brazil or in Eritrea, or in Poland, or in Albania. As much as you may find this hard to conceive, I am one finite person with a finite amount of time. As a result, I don't comment on everything.
Instead, what I tend to do is advocate for the policies in the US - where I live and can best advocate for policy - to be the best possible policies since we are often perceived as a world leader.
So, shall I wait for you to admit you misspoke and acknowledge that I never said anything like this?
Craig... "I do love how you show your prejudice against those who you decide are "Rich" and worthy of derision."
Prejudice against those who "I decide" are "rich" are "worthy of derision..."?
What in the hell are you talking about?
I AM rich. I have traveled to other nations for pleasure. I'm not deriding anyone.
ALL I'm doing is noting the very stark difference between someone like me WANTING to go on a vacation to another country and those refugees and immigrants who are escaping oppression, violence and deprivation.
Those things are not the same.
I'm NOT saying immigrants and refugees ought not be vaccinated, either.
Look, if you ever want to comment on what I'm actually saying, let me know.
My points in response to your post:
1. There are times (weather disasters, plagues, structural disasters) when we can reasonably place temporary restrictions on people accessing their property.
2. Doing so is not draconian or evil, just a reasonable temporary restriction that adults should be able to handle without having a hissy fit.
3. That there is a stark difference between traveling for pleasure and escaping threats and that we can reasonably place restrictions on traveling for pleasure but we should only aid those who are escaping threats.
4. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't promote vaccinations for such refugees.
Do you have any thoughts on what I AM saying?
Re: Denying people "their rights..." I don't know how much more plainly to say this:
You do NOT have a right to interfere with firefighters trying to put out a fire.
You do NOT have a right to place others' lives in danger during a pandemic.
You do NOT have a right to get your way every little way you want it during a time of crisis.
Be an adult, not a crybaby.
Craig, I know you are LOATHE to ever be specific and give, you know, details and shit, but generally speaking, it would help if you would link to some actual data and news about whatever story you're speaking of.
I get that it's easier to demonize and attack and build up strawmen arguments when you avoid details, but you know, adulting and all that.
Craig... "but doesn't the notion of a "free country" depriving property owners of access to their property seem a bit extreme? Especially when they're still expecting that all of the taxes and fees be paid."
For what it's worth (and lacking any details of whatever story you're citing or imagining), I do think it's reasonable to offer reasonable recompense if the TEMPORARY health-concern restrictions are costing people. I'd certainly support Canada in taking that kind of step.
And to answer your question: A permanent ban would be extreme. A temporary restriction due to health, weather or disaster-related concerns seems reasonable, depending on the details.
Craig... " I always suspected that you were pro oppression in certain circumstances. "
Good God. I suspect you're smart enough to recognize the distinction between temporary health-concern restrictions and actual oppression.
That you spend time and effort in defending a pastor's "right" to access his vacation home right away and not spend one single bit of effort or words (that I recall) in concern about actual refugees escaping actual oppression is alarming.
I hope you can see how modern conservatives have presented themselves as being "oppressed" when they don't get every little thing their way while at the same time largely being quiet about the actually oppressed is not a good "look" for conservatism.
"Good God. I suspect you're smart enough to recognize the distinction between temporary health-concern restrictions and actual oppression."
I'm sorry, I thought that government denying people their rights was oppression.
"That you spend time and effort in defending a pastor's "right" to access his vacation home right away and not spend one single bit of effort or words (that I recall) in concern about actual refugees escaping actual oppression is alarming."
1. He's been denied the right to access his private property for well over a year with no end in sight.
2. I'm not so much defending his right, as I am pointing out the denial of his rights, and the draconian controls that Canada has imposed on it's borders for years.
3. I'm not so much defending his being denied his rights, as I am pointing out the hypocrisy of folks who have no problem with governments denying certain people their rights.
4. This post isn't about the general plight of refugees and immigrants throughout the world, it's a specific post about Canada and it's draconian laws and the extreme means they use to enforce those laws.
"I hope you can see how modern conservatives have presented themselves as being "oppressed" when they don't get every little thing their way while at the same time largely being quiet about the actually oppressed is not a good "look" for conservatism."
OK, it's still good to know that you are supportive of people being denied their rights under certain circumstances.
Not to perpetuate Dan's eagerness to avoid your point in favor of promoting his twisted view of reality, there's very little evidence of deprivation and oppression in any of the news footage of the hoards of illegal immigrants flowing across our southern border. Indeed, most appear well dressed and well fed.
"Craig, I know you are LOATHE to ever be specific and give, you know, details and shit, but generally speaking, it would help if you would link to some actual data and news about whatever story you're speaking of."
That's strange, when I'm speaking of a specific mews story I usually provide a link. As I've addressed several items in this post, I'm not sure which one has you so confused.
While I'm sure there are news stories about the general topic of Canada denying people the right to access their private property, I'm using a specific example of a couple of people I know personally. Otherwise, I linked to the story about the massive numbers of people dying while waiting for health care, the arresting pastors stories have been well covered, and the fact that Government run health care has failed to vaccinate enough Canadians that they haven't opened their borders is simply logic.
"I get that it's easier to demonize and attack and build up strawmen arguments when you avoid details, but you know, adulting and all that."
Oh, I've seen and pointed out how often you do exactly that, so I'm well aware of how easy it is.
"Craig... "but doesn't the notion of a "free country" depriving property owners of access to their property seem a bit extreme? Especially when they're still expecting that all of the taxes and fees be paid." For what it's worth (and lacking any details of whatever story you're citing or imagining), I do think it's reasonable to offer reasonable recompense if the TEMPORARY health-concern restrictions are costing people. I'd certainly support Canada in taking that kind of step. And to answer your question: A permanent ban would be extreme. A temporary restriction due to health, weather or disaster-related concerns seems reasonable, depending on the details."
After all this bitching, you grudgingly admit that you agree that Canada is (at some point) depriving people of their rights without compensation.
Craig... "I thought that government denying people their rights was oppression."
Just answer the question: DO YOU or do you not support it when firefighters or disaster workers temporarily restrict people from their homes when a disaster is occurring?
Don't be daft.
Craig... " well over a year with no end in sight."
From what I have read (looking up stuff myself, since you're giving no details) is that the restrictions are set to end during July of 2021, so, an end is in sight, it would appear.
Craig... "you grudgingly admit that you agree that Canada is (at some point) depriving people of their rights without compensation. "
I don't "admit it." I DON'T KNOW the details of Canada's policies and you haven't provided any. I'm talking about a principle. If a nation, for instance, deprived a whole group of people some basic human rights for decades and oppressed them financially for decades more, then some reparations are reasonably due to that group of people.
And also, IF a nation is preventing a person from accessing their summer home due to disaster concerns and IF that is coming at a cost to that person, it would be reasonable to extend some reparations.
Not sure about the legalities of that all, but some reparations seem reasonable in principle.
So, are you coming out now in support of reparations for actually oppressed people? Or is it only privileged people who deserve reparations in your mind?
"What in the hell are you talking about?"
The fact that you assume "rich" when it's not warranted, and use "rich" to justify your apparent acceptance if the denial of private property rights.
"I AM rich. I have traveled to other nations for pleasure. I'm not deriding anyone. ALL I'm doing is noting the very stark difference between someone like me WANTING to go on a vacation to another country"
In this case we're not even talking about a vacation necessarily. We're also talking about being able to do maintenance, upkeep, and check for damage.
"and those refugees and immigrants who are escaping oppression, violence and deprivation. Those things are not the same. I'm NOT saying immigrants and refugees ought not be vaccinated, either. Look, if you ever want to comment on what I'm actually saying, let me know."
Why would I comment and encourage you in your attempt to drive this thread even further off of the actual topic? I've spoken extensively on your topic, and have nothing further to add.
"My points in response to your post: 1. There are times (weather disasters, plagues, structural disasters) when we can reasonably place temporary restrictions on people accessing their property."
Yes, you can justify people being denied access to their property for extended periods, so what?
"2. Doing so is not draconian or evil, just a reasonable temporary restriction that adults should be able to handle without having a hissy fit."
No hissy fit, just pointing out the denial of property rights by the Canadian government and the Canadian health system's inability to protect their population. If you really believed this, then you would have absolutely zero problem with closing the US border in the midst of a global pandemic, or for any other temporary reason. You'd also be perfectly ok with the US government using the same draconian measures as Canada to monitor illegal border crossings.
"3. That there is a stark difference between traveling for pleasure and escaping threats and that we can reasonably place restrictions on traveling for pleasure but we should only aid those who are escaping threats."
Yes, but this is still off topic.
"4. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't promote vaccinations for such refugees. Do you have any thoughts on what I AM saying?"
Not that I'm going to express here where I'd be encouraging your obsession with changing the subject and going off topic. Unfortunately, this isn't your blog and you don't make the rules.
"Re: Denying people "their rights..." I don't know how much more plainly to say this: You do NOT have a right to interfere with firefighters trying to put out a fire."
Off topic and stupid.
"You do NOT have a right to place others' lives in danger during a pandemic."
Really, are you saying that this is an absolute 100% undeniable fact?
"You do NOT have a right to get your way every little way you want it during a time of crisis. Be an adult, not a crybaby."
Never said that I did. Yet I sure see a lot folks on the left who think they do.
"Where precisely did I suggest Canada should have a different standard than I'm arguing for in the US? Can you admit to the reality that I never said that or suggested it?"
When you remain silent on Canada's closed border policy (not all of which is COVID related as I pointed out), then it seems reasonable that you aren't bothered by their policy or support it. The problem is that when you don't explicitly state your positions, we're left trying to understand based on the hints you provide.
"As to advocating for policies in other nations, the reality is I have not spoken much about policy in Canada, or in Brazil or in Eritrea, or in Poland, or in Albania. As much as you may find this hard to conceive, I am one finite person with a finite amount of time. As a result, I don't comment on everything. Instead, what I tend to do is advocate for the policies in the US - where I live and can best advocate for policy - to be the best possible policies since we are often perceived as a world leader. So, shall I wait for you to admit you misspoke and acknowledge that I never said anything like this?"
I completely understand that you choose to ignore things in other countries that you call "monstrous" in the US. That you don't comment on "evil" when it's perpetuated by others countries.
Don't worry, I understand.
"Just answer the question: DO YOU or do you not support it when firefighters or disaster workers temporarily restrict people from their homes when a disaster is occurring? Don't be daft."
1. At this point you're offering an apples to oranges comparison.
2. When the restrictions last beyond the immediate emergency, then it becomes problematic.
3. If allowing people who legally own property in Canada from entering the country regardless of the fact that there is zero potential danger from doing so is such a threat, then how can allowing anyone to enter any country be justified?
"From what I have read (looking up stuff myself, since you're giving no details) is that the restrictions are set to end during July of 2021, so, an end is in sight, it would appear."
1. It's July and the restrictions are still in place.
2. They've already moved back the end of restrictions once, why would you blindly believe that this time they'll end?
Your blind trust in a government that's been so horribly ineffective, and so quick to deny people's rights is touching. Of course, they'll still continue with their immigration restrictions that were in place previously, so now the refugees and immigrants will still be shut out.
"I DON'T KNOW the details of Canada's policies and you haven't provided any. I'm talking about a principle."
So am I. For example, if is appropriate for Canada to close it's borders almost entirely during a pandemic, and if preventing large scale cross border traffic is really necessary to protect the health and safety of the country, then wouldn't any country that encouraged unscreened, unvaccinated, untested, unquarantined people across the border by the tens of thousands be engaging is an incredible risk to their citizens?
"If a nation, for instance, deprived a whole group of people some basic human rights for decades and oppressed them financially for decades more, then some reparations are reasonably due to that group of people. And also, IF a nation is preventing a person from accessing their summer home due to disaster concerns and IF that is coming at a cost to that person, it would be reasonable to extend some reparations. Not sure about the legalities of that all, but some reparations seem reasonable in principle. So, are you coming out now in support of reparations for actually oppressed people? Or is it only privileged people who deserve reparations in your mind?"
Holy crap, are you simply too stupid to stay on the topic? Perhaps you don't see yourself as being bound by the limits placed on mere mortals, or you are so determined to assert your control over others that you're simply blind to your own behavior.
What so funny aboot all of this is that you are literally arguing that Canada is obligated to close their borders to protect themselves from COVID, while simultaneously arguing that the US is obligated to allow anyone access if they "want to" without regard to the danger they pose to US citizens.
That and your willingness to meekly accept whatever "the government" tell you as long as they tell you it's for your own good.
Craig... "When the restrictions last beyond the immediate emergency, then it becomes problematic."
So. So far, the US has had 600,000 deaths. So, I guess we can say "Hey, the emergency's over! Yay us!" ...because Craig has declared that the "immediate emergency" is over, so, Mission Accomplished.
Got it.
So. It appears you ARE daft and you ONLY bitch about well off people being inconvenienced but not actual oppression and actual refugees.
Got it.
For what it's worth, I have no "blind trust" in any gov't. I don't know the details of what's happening in Canada and certainly don't trust your partisan and pissy little opinion about what's happening there.
I don't have a blind trust in Canada, and I certainly have no blind trust in your ability to accurately convey information about a story.
We've already seen that you have reading comprehension problems, given the dozens (hundreds?) of misrepresentations of my position you make. Including the "blind trust" nonsense.
Craig... "then wouldn't any country that encouraged unscreened, unvaccinated, untested, unquarantined people across the border by the tens of thousands be engaging is an incredible risk to their citizens?"
Speaking of reading comprehension deficits... when precisely did the US encouraged un-vaccinated people to cross the border by the tens of thousands?
I'll wait for you to cite the presidential declaration.
Oh wait. That didn't happen in the real world.
Just another empty claim by just another Trump-style conservative, for whom facts and reality just don't appear to matter, as long as you can try to get a partisan attack made.
Speaking of reading comprehension deficits...
"What so funny aboot all of this is that you are literally arguing that Canada is obligated to close their borders to protect themselves from COVID, while simultaneously arguing that the US is obligated to allow anyone access if they "want to" without regard to the danger they pose to US citizens."
When did I argue that the US is obligated to allow "anyone access" if they "want to..."? I'll wait for you to cite the quote where I said that.
Oh wait. That didn't happen in the real world. Either.
Sigh.
1. I support refugees seeking safety because that is a human rights matter.
Because of course I do. Because "blessed are you who welcome the strangers and immigrants. Because I'm not a douche. Because human rights.
2. I support refugees currently trying to enter the US to have vaccinations or be provided vaccinations.
Because of course I do.
3. Ironically, a more open border would discourage secret incursions into the US (or any nation) and thus make it easier to ensure vaccinations. That's smart.
4. I support Smart. I support human rights. I support immigrants and refugees.
What part of that are you disagreeing with? Do you NOT support being smart? Supporting refugees? Vaccinations?
Craig... "That and your willingness to meekly accept whatever "the government" tell you as long as they tell you it's for your own good. "
Speaking of reading comprehension deficits.
Of course I don't blindly accept whatever the gov't (any gov't) tells me. Clearly and factually we know it's not true because you've SEEN me protest gov't actions in the past. You've SEEN me promote policy changes different than what the gov't is promoting.
That I don't trust partisan whiners like you're being today does not mean that I trust "the gov't."
I've consistently opposed the war on drugs, even when it was Democrats promoting some part of it. I've consistently (since leaving/being left by conservatism) supported LGBTQ rights, even when it was Democrats who had policies that caused harm. I've consistently opposed xenophobic border policies, even when it's been Democrats who were promoting them.
Trust gov't? Of course not.
Trust modern conservatives? One would have to be a fool.
Craig... "Holy crap, are you simply too stupid to stay on the topic?"
So, discussing reparations from privileged, well-off conservative preachers who've been inconvenienced is ON topic, but to apply the same principle to generations of actually oppressed and systemically marginalized people of color... that's OFF topic?
Got it.
We see.
"Aboot". Now you're talking like a Canadian!😂
"You do NOT have a right to get your way every little way you want it during a time of crisis."
Why don't you apply that standard to the illegals ignoring our laws by sneaking across our border?
"So. So far, the US has had 600,000 deaths."
Given the fact that the numbers have been revised downward in multiple places, and the methodology of recording might lean toward overstating COVID deaths, I'm not sure I buy the number, but the reality is that infections and deaths have dropped sharply, and many states have opened back up without the levels of carnage predicted by folks like you.
"So, I guess we can say "Hey, the emergency's over! Yay us!" ...because Craig has declared that the "immediate emergency" is over, so, Mission Accomplished."
Actually, this is simply a lie.
"Got it. So. It appears you ARE daft and you ONLY bitch about well off people being inconvenienced but not actual oppression and actual refugees. Got it."
This is also simply a lie.
"For what it's worth, I have no "blind trust" in any gov't. I don't know the details of what's happening in Canada and certainly don't trust your partisan and pissy little opinion about what's happening there. I don't have a blind trust in Canada, and I certainly have no blind trust in your ability to accurately convey information about a story. We've already seen that you have reading comprehension problems, given the dozens (hundreds?) of misrepresentations of my position you make. Including the "blind trust" nonsense."
If you say so.
"Speaking of reading comprehension deficits... when precisely did the US encouraged un-vaccinated people to cross the border by the tens of thousands?"
I'm sorry, maybe I missed the part where the record numbers of folks crossing our southern border were all screened, tested, and vaccinated for COVID and other communicable diseases before they were allowed free reign. If I missed that, I apologize. Although the tens of thousands is probably low.
"I'll wait for you to cite the presidential declaration. Oh wait. That didn't happen in the real world. Just another empty claim by just another Trump-style conservative, for whom facts and reality just don't appear to matter, as long as you can try to get a partisan attack made."
How about you cite the declaration where all immigrants are tested/screened/vaccinated against COVID? I'll wait. Or you can wallow in the double standard between your acceptance of Canada's strict restrictions, and the US lack of restrictions.
Actually, our "emergency" turned out to not be an emergency at all, and was known to not be an emergency for quite some time. Field hospitals and hospital ships gone unused were a very early indication. The knowledge of who was at risk also was known early on(at least by Gov. DeSantis who actually looked at data from outside the US as well as here).
That fact doesn't mean there's on risk of disease spread in allowing unfettered immigration by those who want their way every little way they want it by claiming a crisis compels their demands. Covid is just one of the diseases illegals have been bringing with them.
But hey, Dan's a lefty and lefty's don't care about who is burdened by their easy provision of what doesn't belong to them.
"When did I argue that the US is obligated to allow "anyone access" if they "want to..."?"
"The reality is that all nations that can afford to do so SHOULD allow refugees and immigrants escaping danger and starvation to enter their nations because, of course, they should."
"then I support such people moving in period"
"I do support immigrants coming to the US , especially refugees seeking safety and food security. Because of course I do."
A few examples of your views on unrestricted immigration. Maybe I missed you saying that all immigrants shoudl be screened for COVID.
"I'll wait for you to cite the quote where I said that. Oh wait. That didn't happen in the real world. Either. Sigh."
"1. I support refugees seeking safety because that is a human rights matter. Because of course I do. Because "blessed are you who welcome the strangers and immigrants. Because I'm not a douche. Because human rights. 2. I support refugees currently trying to enter the US to have vaccinations or be provided vaccinations. Because of course I do. 3. Ironically, a more open border would discourage secret incursions into the US (or any nation) and thus make it easier to ensure vaccinations. That's smart. 4. I support Smart. I support human rights. I support immigrants and refugees. What part of that are you disagreeing with? Do you NOT support being smart? Supporting refugees?"
Oh look, you just acknowledged that you support unvaccinated people being allowed increased access to the US, shocking. I guess the fact that you support Canada locking everyone out, is entirely consistent with your other statements.
1. I disagree with unfettered/unregulated immigration.
2. I disagree with unfettered/unregulated immigration during a pandemic even more so.
3. If the horror stories that Fauchi and the establishment have been pushing are true, then allowing tens (hundreds) of thousands of people into our country with no screening/testing/quarantine/vaccinations will prove disastrous.
4. If it doesn't prove disastrous, then it certainly suggests that Canada is overreacting and should end it's more draconian restrictions.
5. I don't support the notion that your definition of smart is accurate or worthy of support.
6. Asked and answered elsewhere.
"Speaking of reading comprehension deficits. Of course I don't blindly accept whatever the gov't (any gov't) tells me. Clearly and factually we know it's not true because you've SEEN me protest gov't actions in the past."
My bad, I should have clarified that you only accept government actions that you agree with or that come from your side of the aisle meekly. The rest you attack regardless of their value.
"You've SEEN me promote policy changes different than what the gov't is promoting. That I don't trust partisan whiners like you're being today does not mean that I trust "the gov't." I've consistently opposed the war on drugs, even when it was Democrats promoting some part of it. I've consistently (since leaving/being left by conservatism) supported LGBTQ rights, even when it was Democrats who had policies that caused harm. I've consistently opposed xenophobic border policies, even when it's been Democrats who were promoting them. Trust gov't? Of course not. Trust modern conservatives? One would have to be a fool."
Blah, blah, blah.
"So, discussing reparations from privileged, well-off conservative preachers who've been inconvenienced is ON topic, but to apply the same principle to generations of actually oppressed and systemically marginalized people of color... that's OFF topic?"
Yes. This thread is specifically about Canada, and how the Canadian government is denying rights to property owners, jailing pastors for doing their jobs, and how their vaunted health care system is failing. Anything else is off topic. Do you understand that you don't get to decide what's on topic at blogs that aren't yours? Do your understand that your obsession with changing the subject to whatever suits you, simply makes you look like a cowardly ass?
"Got it. We see."
Clearly you don't as I've had to explain this simple reality to you multiple times,
Craig... "A few examples of your views on unrestricted immigration."
YOu said this IN SPITE of quoting from me where I SPECIFICALLY and LITERALLY limited it to NOT ALL people, but refugees and immigrants escaping danger.
I don't know if you can understand this from your warped place of security and privilege, but PEOPLE ESCAPING DANGER does not equal ALL PEOPLE.
HERE is a group of people escaping danger. It is reasonable to help them and indeed, we SHOULD help them and help them immediately because, Danger.
HERE is another group that is simply wanting to vacation in another nation. We don't need to help them immediately.
Literally NOT saying unrestricted access to all people. Literally NOT saying we shouldn't aid in vaccinations.
How can you read my words and reach ass-backwards conclusions that are NOT specified in my actual words?
Craig... "you just acknowledged that you support unvaccinated people being allowed increased access to the US..."
Also Craig... " If the horror stories that Fauchi and the establishment have been pushing are true, then allowing tens (hundreds) of thousands of people into our country with no screening/testing/quarantine/vaccinations will prove disastrous."
OH, FUCKKING LOOK. NEITHER Dan nor Fauci advocated immigrants NOT being screened and NOT getting vaccinations.
I don't know how to help you. What you're alleging is literally NOT IN OUR WORDS.
Can you just be a rational adult for ONE MINUTE and acknowledge that this is a stupidly false claim/suggestion?
I don't know, Craig... are you having mental/understanding problems? I don't want to be harsh on you if you are somehow limited or impaired... I'm sort of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're a rational adult who can understand words, but I'm afraid that may not be the case.
Good luck.
Craig... " I should have clarified that you only accept government actions that you agree with or that come from your side of the aisle meekly. The rest you attack regardless of their value."
THEN Craig literally quotes me being quite clear that I do NOT support Democrats when they promote policies I disagree with, and I give specifics....
"" I've consistently opposed the war on drugs, even when it was Democrats promoting some part of it. I've consistently (since leaving/being left by conservatism) supported LGBTQ rights, even when it was Democrats who had policies that caused harm."
And yet, instead of Craig admitting he misspoke or made a stupidly false claim when he said I "only accept actions that you agree with or that come from your side of the aisle meekly..." he just responds with "blah blah blah..."
I know it's easier to close your eyes and plug your ears and ignore reality, but that doesn't change reality.
As to the suggestion that I "only accept actions I agree with..." Well, yeah.
Are you suggesting I would be rational to OPPOSE policies/actions I agree with??
???
Again, good luck in life.
"YOu said this IN SPITE of quoting from me where I SPECIFICALLY and LITERALLY limited it to NOT ALL people, but refugees and immigrants escaping danger. I don't know if you can understand this from your warped place of security and privilege, but PEOPLE ESCAPING DANGER does not equal ALL PEOPLE. HERE is a group of people escaping danger. It is reasonable to help them and indeed, we SHOULD help them and help them immediately because, Danger. HERE is another group that is simply wanting to vacation in another nation. We don't need to help them immediately. Literally NOT saying unrestricted access to all people. Literally NOT saying we shouldn't aid in vaccinations. How can you read my words and reach ass-backwards conclusions that are NOT specified in my actual words?"
You're right, I should have added "virtually" or some other qualifier. Of course I'm also looking at the entirety of your hunches about immigration and you've been pretty clear that you believe that people should have "self determination" and be able to roam freely wherever they want. So, it's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw that you support minimal/no limits on immigration.
"OH, FUCKKING LOOK. NEITHER Dan nor Fauci advocated immigrants NOT being screened and NOT getting vaccinations. I don't know how to help you. What you're alleging is literally NOT IN OUR WORDS. Can you just be a rational adult for ONE MINUTE and acknowledge that this is a stupidly false claim/suggestion? I don't know, Craig... are you having mental/understanding problems? I don't want to be harsh on you if you are somehow limited or impaired... I'm sort of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're a rational adult who can understand words, but I'm afraid that may not be the case. Good luck."
I'm sorry, for my confusion. In anything that you or Fauchi have said, have you ever once advocated for quarantining ALL immigrants at the border for testing, and/or vaccination? Have you ever advocated ANY means to test, screen, or vaccinated ALL immigrants?
I'm pretty sure neither of you have addressed it, therefore it's reasonable to conclude that you aren't concerned about tens of thousands of immigrants entering the US untested and unvaccinated. Obviously, you have the opportunity to clarify your actual position rather than your expletive filled ranting justifying your silence.
" THEN Craig literally quotes me being quite clear that I do NOT support Democrats when they promote policies I disagree with, and I give specifics.... "" I've consistently opposed the war on drugs, even when it was Democrats promoting some part of it. I've consistently (since leaving/being left by conservatism) supported LGBTQ rights, even when it was Democrats who had policies that caused harm." And yet, instead of Craig admitting he misspoke or made a stupidly false claim when he said I "only accept actions that you agree with or that come from your side of the aisle meekly..." he just responds with "blah blah blah..." I know it's easier to close your eyes and plug your ears and ignore reality, but that doesn't change reality. As to the suggestion that I "only accept actions I agree with..." Well, yeah. Are you suggesting I would be rational to OPPOSE policies/actions I agree with?? ??? Again, good luck in life."
Blah, blah, blah.
My point stands that while you might oppose some government policies (silently or quietly when the DFL implements them), that in general you are much more likely to support a government solution to most problems as opposed to any other option.
Again, these semantic nitpickings are amusing, but not on topic.
Craig... "[1.] you are much more likely to support a government solution to most problems as opposed to any other option.
[2.] Again, these semantic nitpickings are amusing, but not on topic."
1. Prove it, dipshit. Don't make stupidly false claims that you don't know the answer to... especially when the claim is just stupidly false. Hint: Just because you can think something up in your head doesn't mean it equals reality or should be repeated out loud without support.
2. Craig... "Semantic nitpickings..." Dan... "Reality."
You can choose to dismiss reality and the reality of the false claims you make by calling it semantics, but that doesn't change reality.
=====
1. I support gov't policies where gov't policies make sense. If we're going to have a national road system or penal/justice system or clean air and water... THEN national policies matter. If we're talking about personal policies (what medical procedures should we use, what diet should I follow, what transportation choices should I make, should I marry and who should I marry, etc), then I support private decisions that are personally and societally responsible.
Craig... " In anything that you or Fauchi have said, have you ever once advocated for quarantining ALL immigrants at the border for testing, and/or vaccination? Have you ever advocated ANY means to test, screen, or vaccinated ALL immigrants?"
Is there ANYTHING that either of us have said that would give you reason to think that we DON'T support all people (excepting those without medical reasons not to get a vaccine) getting vaccines?
Has Fauci not been abundantly clear that ALL people who can should get vaccines?
"We encourage people to get vaccines!" ~Dr Fauci
"People who live in under-served communities, which often include Black and brown people, should receive prioritization in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday." ~Miami Herald
Is there something in anything he has said that makes you think that people who are immigrants are an exception to "all people get vaccines..."? Is it not abundantly clear that poor immigrants from Latin America should not only get vaccinated, but should be "prioritized..."?
The fact is, OF COURSE we support people getting vaccines and OF COURSE that includes immigrants because OF COURSE, we're not idiots and of course, we're going to go with what the science/data is showing to be the best policy.
How far will you go to admit you just made a stupid mistake and made a stupidly false claim?
As an aside, do you keep repeatedly misspelling Fauci's name deliberately or is it just the same typo, over and over?
"Is there ANYTHING that either of us have said that would give you reason to think that we DON'T support all people (excepting those without medical reasons not to get a vaccine) getting vaccines? Has Fauci not been abundantly clear that ALL people who can should get vaccines?"
1. I fail to see the relevance to the discussion in this thread.
2. You can put any questions to rest very easily by answering one question clearly and concisely.
3. Have you advocated for the detention/quarantine/vaccination of every single immigrant to the US, or their expulsion if they refuse?
"We encourage people to get vaccines!" ~Dr Fauci "People who live in under-served communities, which often include Black and brown people, should receive prioritization in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday." ~Miami Herald Is there something in anything he has said that makes you think that people who are immigrants are an exception to "all people get vaccines..."?"
It's more his absolute silence on imposing strong measures at the border to deal with immigrants before the are turned loose in society. The simple fact is that you and your ilk are fine with allowing thousands of immigrants across the border with no precautions/testing/quarantine, or if you do you've been completely silent on the subject.
"Is it not abundantly clear that poor immigrants from Latin America should not only get vaccinated, but should be "prioritized..."? The fact is, OF COURSE we support people getting vaccines and OF COURSE that includes immigrants because OF COURSE, we're not idiots and of course, we're going to go with what the science/data is showing to be the best policy. How far will you go to admit you just made a stupid mistake and made a stupidly false claim?"
1. You're continuing to answer questions with a question.
2. You've slightly changed to the terms of the conversation to this theoretical "everybody should be vaccinated at some point", and away from allowing thousands of untested/unquarantined/unvaccinated high risk people into the country.
3. In the face of your silence on the "claim" I actually made (really the questions I've asked that you haven't answered), your notion that your perversion of what I've said as being "false" is laughable. Mainly because the falsehood lies with your straw man, not my original questions.
"As an aside, do you keep repeatedly misspelling Fauci's name deliberately or is it just the same typo, over and over?"
Don't really care that much. But if you're going to start bitching about typos, I'll be glad to point yours out as well.
"Prove it, dipshit. Don't make stupidly false claims that you don't know the answer to... especially when the claim is just stupidly false."
Why would I every prove my opinion? Hell you won't prove anything you say, but you'll pull this double standard shit when I express an opinion.
"Hint: Just because you can think something up in your head doesn't mean it equals reality or should be repeated out loud without support."
Never, ever said anything close to this.
"2. Craig... "Semantic nitpickings..." Dan... "Reality." You can choose to dismiss reality and the reality of the false claims you make by calling it semantics, but that doesn't change reality. ====="
It's so cute when you make these idiotic pronouncements about what "reality is, yet never prove them be true.
"1. I support gov't policies where gov't policies make sense. If we're going to have a national road system or penal/justice system or clean air and water... THEN national policies matter. If we're talking about personal policies (what medical procedures should we use, what diet should I follow, what transportation choices should I make, should I marry and who should I marry, etc), then I support private decisions that are personally and societally responsible."
Great, more power to you.
I assume that means you support peoples choices to decline the vaccine due to the potential dangers they believe exist?
"when you use a...term to refer to people with intellectual delays and disabilities, ...it's a way of pointing to adults with disabilities,...as Lesser and Undesirable"
...unless you're Dan, then you can say anything you like at the blogs of others, because calling someone a "dipshit" is embracing grace if Dan does it.
I believe I've answered this question in a variety of ways, but just because I saw it and want to make sure. Craig asked...
" Have you advocated for the detention/quarantine/vaccination of every single immigrant to the US, or their expulsion if they refuse?"
1. I've ALWAYS advocated for following best medical advice.
2. Right now, the best medical advice is for everyone who can SAFELY get vaccinated should do so. This recognizes the reality that not everyone can be safely vaccinated - young children, those with compromised immune systems, etc. I OF COURSE support this.
3. I would generally support all immigrants (they, being a part of ALL that I have already been clear should get vaccinated) getting vaccines if they can safely do so.
4. UNFORTUNATELY, because of draconian immigration laws promoted by conservatives and not fully rebuked by moderates, not every immigrant IS safe in getting vaccines. There's a chance some might get deported and getting deported is ALSO not safe.
You see, there's a cost to many immigrants to merely try to live safely and it's not always easy to make the best decisions, because our policies have negatively impacted them. (AND because you like to say, "what about other nations?"... I'd add, and of course, the policies of criminals and nations where they come from also makes it safe not to stay - sometimes due in part to our US policies in the first place, sometimes not - AND other nations who don't have open door policies for refugees also don't make it safe. This shit is obvious and shouldn't need to be pointed out, but not everyone understands simple and obvious shit. Apparently.)
5. I FULLY support changing our immigration laws making them more rational (and, as a consequence, more Christian and common sense moral) to stop criminalizing being an immigrant and refugee so that immigrants don't feel like they have to make these dangerous choices and so, YES, they could get vaccinated, as they should. But, I also recognize that policies have consequences and refuse to blame the poor who have been oppressed by policies for not always doing things like getting their vaccines... I blame the policy makers and vote for change/progress. Because of course, I do.
"1. I've ALWAYS advocated for following best medical advice."
Really, you've always (100% of the time) advocated for following the "best medical advice"? That's quite a claim.
"2. Right now, the best medical advice is for everyone who can SAFELY get vaccinated should do so. This recognizes the reality that not everyone can be safely vaccinated - young children, those with compromised immune systems, etc. I OF COURSE support this."
According to a local news report, the BEST (they used the term "bulletproof" I believe) medical advice is that the natural immunity from actually having COVID, plus the vaccine, is the most effective way to be immune in the future.
"3. I would generally support all immigrants (they, being a part of ALL that I have already been clear should get vaccinated) getting vaccines if they can safely do so."
"4. UNFORTUNATELY, because of draconian immigration laws promoted by conservatives and not fully rebuked by moderates, not every immigrant IS safe in getting vaccines."
I'm confused by how these "draconian" immigration laws (much less so than either Canada r Mexico) have anything to do with people's ability to get vaccinated. Please explain.
"There's a chance some might get deported and getting deported is ALSO not safe. You see, there's a cost to many immigrants to merely try to live safely and it's not always easy to make the best decisions, because our policies have negatively impacted them. (AND because you like to say, "what about other nations?"... I'd add, and of course, the policies of criminals and nations where they come from also makes it safe not to stay - sometimes due in part to our US policies in the first place, sometimes not - AND other nations who don't have open door policies for refugees also don't make it safe. This shit is obvious and shouldn't need to be pointed out, but not everyone understands simple and obvious shit. Apparently.)"
This is simply irrelevant bullshit which has nothing to do with the question allegedly being answered.
"5. I FULLY support changing our immigration laws making them more rational (and, as a consequence, more Christian and common sense moral) to stop criminalizing being an immigrant and refugee so that immigrants don't feel like they have to make these dangerous choices and so, YES, they could get vaccinated, as they should. But, I also recognize that policies have consequences and refuse to blame the poor who have been oppressed by policies for not always doing things like getting their vaccines... I blame the policy makers and vote for change/progress. Because of course, I do."
Well, you (sort of) answered part of the question. (That you think immigrants should be vaccinated in a broad general sense) Maybe you'll answer the rest.
To be clear.
Do you think that immigrants should be temporarily denied access to the US if they are not vaccinated? Do you think that all immigrants should be screened and tested for COVID and other infectious diseases before being allowed to enter the country? Should any who test positive for COVID or any other infectious diseases be allowed unrestricted entry into the US?
"That sounds to me that you are PRECISELY making a literal claim about them, and a negative and unsupported claim."
Well, the 1619 project literally trumpets the fact that it is not actual history but a slanted version of history intended to influence people.
"You've "Seen quotes from ... proponents of CRT" who "say things LIKE this... " that you "suspect many proponents do espouse" it (that CRT is saying all white people must be viewed as racist oppressors.) You ARE speaking for them and intimating - WITHOUT A SINGLE QUOTE to support your stupidly false claim - that they believe precisely what you're suggesting they believe."
No, I'm actually not doing that at all.
1. My initial statement was a hypothetical if/then statement, it was NOT a claim of any specific person making any specific statement.
2. My follow up was that I've seen quotes that suggest or leave the impression that justify my hypothetical if/then statement.
3. I phrased my comments as I did because I didn't and don't have time to dig through mountains of material to find the quotes.
"So, stop playing coy. We SEE that you are setting up the suggestion that CRT is advocating things that you can not support. This is just more typical Craig, vague intimations and suggestions that you toy with the idea that "I didn't say that..." while clearly suggesting it. It is a way to slander and demonize and precisely the strategy of actual white racists. It's what they did to King and the Civil Rights movement when we were children and it's what racists and their allies are continuing to do today. Ironically, your vague accusations and slander are precisely the evidence that many black folk see as evidence that so many white people ARE still invested in racism, by your attacks, demonizations, slander. ALL I've been saying is that IF they didn't say it, DON'T SUGGEST that they did. IF you're going to directly hint that you suspect it's what they believe, then be a grown up adult and support your argument. This is just lazy man's cowardly racism. A soft racism that tries to be respectable but we can see what you're doing. Stop it. Support your claim or stop making these vague allegations. Craig... "3. Do you realize that I tend to get my information about CRT from black folks, and that I'm not inclined to take your biased paraphrases seriously?" It's not a paraphrase to note, "UM... they don't say that." It's literally noting the reality that THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and your accusations and slanders are just more racist-allied attacks. Quit pretending to "listen to black voices" when you're only finding excerpts of voices that agree with your unsupported biases and unfounded opinions. Again: ALL I'm noting is that, IN SPITE of the notion that you suspect many DO believe what you said, THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and if you can't support it, then withdraw the suggestion."
More slanderous, ad hom, bullshit.
I said what I said, and I specifically kept in in the hypothetical if/then phrasing precisely because I didn't have the time to dig through a bunch of crap. If you want to make shit up, try to impose all sorts of nefarious motivations, and continue to lie about me, I can't stop you. But continuing to lie, doesn't help your cause in the least.
"This IS a good example of the systemic racism put into place by white policymakers across the nation that have had long-lasting negative impacts for black people and real costs to generational wealth lasting to today. Precisely the sorts of systemic racism that CRT warns about and precisely what racists and their useful idiot allies are fighting to support when they attack CRT."
Yes, except this one< like many of the other examples you use was put in by an icon of modern liberalism, and one of the most prominent democrat politicians of the 20th century.
"Why are you so dubious of the warriors fighting against racism and injustice?"
I'm not. I'm dubious of anyone who responds to questions or criticism by labeling those who disagree as "haters", "racists" and other derogatory terms, and whose solutions involve intentional race based discrimination.
"No. Because that's just not the reality. FDR may have had his role in it, but red lining happened At the hand of conservative bankers and policy makers across the nation."
No, the reality is that the Roosevelt administration intentionally, wrote redlining into the New Deal (a series of initiatives frequently lauded by liberals as having saved the US from depression). The FHA (a part of FDR's executive branch of government) was responsible for redlining becoming federal policy.
Unless you are suggesting that FDR wasn't responsible for the acts of his executive branch during his administration.
Maybe you should spend less time on partisan attacks, and more on studying history. Your attempts to dodge the reality that the DFL owns much of what is now called systemic racism, further undermines your credibility.
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america
There was a time when the health condition of an immigrant seeking entry in the legal manner of that time could result in a denial of entry. The rational, logical and intelligent reasoning for this is to protect the citizens of this country from being infected by whatever disease was cause to reject application, and not spreading the disease throughout the population. Thus, if Dan was really the Christian (and American) he poorly tries to convince us he is, he would also insist upon denying entry until all seeking it are guaranteed to be healthy. (This, of course, does not include those brought here for the purpose of accessing medical care not available in their home country when their life is clearly at risk)
There's nothing at all "draconian" about our existing immigration policy (pre-dumbass Biden/Obama). One can argue about the numbers we allow to enter every year, but there's really no other legit argument any honest person can make for changing them. Certainly Dan's never providing any.
Craig has a hard time understanding direct, clear answers and thus, asked again...
"Do you think that immigrants should be temporarily denied access to the US if they are not vaccinated?"
I DO NOT THINK that refugees fleeing danger and insecurity should be sent back. Period. I ALSO think that they should be vaccinated.
I don't advocate forced vaccinations on anyone. Including immigrants. It should be strongly recommended, because of course it should.
What part of this are you not following?
Craig...
"Do you think that all immigrants should be screened and tested for COVID and other infectious diseases before being allowed to enter the country?
I don't have a problem with screening and checking for covid as immigrants enter the country. I don't think they should be sent back if they're refugees and refuse to be tested. I'm not sure what I would advocate in such a case. But a question for you:
Is there a documented huge instance of people refusing to be screened and checked? I sort of suspect that this is a non-existent problem that you've invented, but maybe I'm wrong. Data?
Also: Do you support schools screen and checking for covid? How about businesses?
Do you support businesses refusing to serve those who refuse to wear a mask?
Craig...
"Should any who test positive for COVID or any other infectious diseases be allowed unrestricted entry into the US?"
No, they should be quarantined. Of course.
And, as always, I support the same measures for ALL countries, even if I don't mention all countries.
Because you have a documented problem understanding such things.
Craig... "I'm confused by how these "draconian" immigration laws (much less so than either Canada r Mexico) have anything to do with people's ability to get vaccinated. Please explain."
I GET that you live in an ivory castle where the concerns and travails of immigrants "of the wrong sort" are wholly unknown to you, but INS has a history (especially in the lawless/ruthless Trump years) of luring immigrants lacking documentation into being captured by waiting outside of vaccination sites, schools, hospitals and other places undocumented immigrants might show up and snatching them off the streets to ship them back home or put them in jail for the "crime" of moving from one place to another. Immigrants are rightly nervous about government officials - especially when the administration or party setting policy leans towards authoritarianism, as in the Trump years.
THAT is why immigrants may be wary of voluntarily going some place to get vaccinated.
Again, I get that you isolate yourself from such unsavory refugee matters (in spite of helping some folks from other nations - you'd think that would make you more sympathetic, not less), but I'd also think that you would have at least heard these sorts of reports in the news.
Perhaps the problem is in your "news" source?
Craig...
"Maybe you should spend less time on partisan attacks, and more on studying history..."
Hm. The irony and stupidity and arrogance just never stops.
That is what Craig says (above). THIS is what reality shows...
"Racial segregation and discrimination against minority populations predated the specific process termed "redlining" in the United States that
had its origins in sales practices of the National Association of Real Estate Boards
and theories about race and property values codified by economists surrounding Richard T. Ely and his Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities"
"The federal government's (FDR) involvement with the practice
began with the National Housing Act of 1934
and the concurrent establishment of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)."
Additionally, it was put into practice by well-meaning traditional bankers across the nation.
Also Craig... "Your attempts to dodge the reality that the DFL owns much of what is now called systemic racism, further undermines your credibility."
Your inability to understand that I ALSO condemn Democrats (even the "democrats" of nearly a century ago, which were not the same as Democrats today - perhaps you should stop criticizing and start actually studying history) when they advocate bad policies.
I criticize and condemn the institutional racism in the redlining of Democrat FDR.
I, by and large, criticize and condemned the "welfare reform" of the Clinton administration.
I criticized Don't Ask, Don't Tell, even while recognizing it was a better alternative to the GOP's Kick out the Gays policy.
I condemn and criticize the drone attacks and the immigration policies/"caging of children" that happened in the Obama years.
AND, I condemn all that when it's the GOP doing it. I'm consistent.
The question then is, DO YOU recognize the institutional racism of redlining and other deliberately created policies that had negative impacts upon people of a particular race? If so, do you condemn those who are lying and spreading false stories about institutional/systemic racism or who are downplaying its reality?
Or are you just trying and failing to find something to play "gotcha" trying to find an inconsistency in my views and failing miserably?
That I may not complain crazy loudly when it's a Democrat doing light racism and harmful immigration policies, for instance, is only because the alternative of sending support the way of the GOP who are doing more serious racism and even more harmful immigration policies is not an option. But you should not mistake not seeing me talk about it as thinking I'm not taking action on it when it's a Democrat in office.
Our local NVDA/community action group is a bane in lives of the Democrats in power in Louisville. AND even moreso the GOP, who are advocating even worse policies.
Our last two Democratic mayors wouldn't even talk with us precisely BECAUSE we were so critical and insistent on pushing change they didn't want.
But neither were we blind in recognizing that it would be even worse with a GOP mayor.
In short, you swung and you missed. Again.
Seriously, go read some history. Read what the liberals are doing and the progress brought about by progressives.
Craig... " I'm dubious of anyone who responds to questions or criticism by labeling those who disagree as "haters", "racists" and other derogatory terms, and whose solutions involve intentional race based discrimination."
I'm sorry, please clarify... if a university had zero black professors, you would OPPOSE them actively trying to recruit professors who were black (ie, "race based discrimination...")? Really?
Is it the case that you can't understand the distinction between being discriminating in one's choices (discriminating for a better result, of course) and the overt racism of redlining and keeping gay folk out of the military and other HARM-based discrimination?
If not, I don't know how to help you. I'd advocate that you work on maturing your sense of morality and justice beyond a 1st grade level.
Answered several of your questions. I'll give you a chance to answer mine.
"I DO NOT THINK that refugees fleeing danger and insecurity should be sent back."
Then you appear to think that unvaccinated, untested, unscreend immigrants should be allowed into the US regardless of whether of not that have COVID or other communicable disease. It' always helpful when you respond to a specific question, with bland generalities.
"I ALSO think that they should be vaccinated. I don't advocate forced vaccinations on anyone. Including immigrants."
1. This seems to simply reiterate your belief that immigrants should be allowed to enter the US during a pandemic, with no restrictions at all in regards to their infectious disease status. Seems counterproductive to stopping the spread or lowering the curve, or whatever the catchphrase is today.
2. Should the be forced to wear masks and social distance?
3. Should the be quarantined for 14 days?
4. Apparently Cuomo (who for some reason is still in office) has announced that NY will begin using coercion. How is coercion by the government different from force? Or at least the threat of force?
"It should be strongly recommended, because of course it should. What part of this are you not following?"
Since this is the most clear (not that it's very clear) you've been, I'm not sure what you are asking. Again, broad/general answers to specific questions aren't helpful.
"I don't have a problem with screening and checking for covid as immigrants enter the country. I don't think they should be sent back if they're refugees and refuse to be tested. I'm not sure what I would advocate in such a case."
That doesn't answer the question I asked.
"But a question for you: Is there a documented huge instance of people refusing to be screened and checked?"
1. Yes. The fact that we are seeing thousands of immigrants crossing the border illegally, indicates that they are (by their actions) refusing to be screened upon entry.
2. Is the Biden administration currently engaged in ANY COVID screening for those who cross the border legally?
3. If this pandemic is the dire health crisis it's purported to be, then shouldn't we be taking minimal precautions to prevent the admission of COVID positive people to the country?
"I sort of suspect that this is a non-existent problem that you've invented, but maybe I'm wrong. Data?"
1. It's a comparison of the US immigration policies to Canada's in a time of a global health crisis brought on by a pandemic. Canada has chosen the draconian step of basically closing their borders to most traffic, and forcing the small number of people that they do allow in to take specific steps as a condition of entry.
2. If the US is not responding similarly, one must wonder why.
3. If Canada's approach is correct, then why is the US not similarly protecting it's citizens.
4. It's more about pointing out the inconsistency than anything else.
5. Thousands of unscreeded, untested, unvaccinated, people eentering the US without any restrictions or quarantine during a global pandemic, why would anyone possibly be concerned about that.
"Also: Do you support schools screen and checking for covid? How about businesses? Do you support businesses refusing to serve those who refuse to wear a mask?"
No, I don't. But I'm not supporting a higher standard for US citizens and those already in the country than I am for those who wish to enter the country. Of course, I support the "right" of businesses to refuse service to people for all sorts of reasons, and I also support the "rights" of people to explore alternate ways to educate their children if they don't agree with the actions of their government run schools.
"No, they should be quarantined. Of course. And, as always, I support the same measures for ALL countries, even if I don't mention all countries. Because you have a documented problem understanding such things."
Finally, one specific answer to the specific question asked.
This raises the question. Are immigrants who enter the country through the proper legal channels being tested, quarantined, and restricted if appropriate by the Biden administration? What is the Biden administration doing to test and quarantine the thousands who don't enter through the proper legal channels?
"I GET that you live in an ivory castle where the concerns and travails of immigrants "of the wrong sort" are wholly unknown to you, but INS has a history (especially in the lawless/ruthless Trump years) of luring immigrants lacking documentation into being captured by waiting outside of vaccination sites, schools, hospitals and other places undocumented immigrants might show up and snatching them off the streets to ship them back home or put them in jail for the "crime" of moving from one place to another."
Then you'd be wrong. Strangely, you don't cite any actual sources for these claims, and fail to acknowledge that US law (along with most of the rest of the world) prohibits that kind of untrammeled migration at will that you advocate for. Yet Clinton, P-BO, and Biden have enforced the same law you bitch about, without changes.
"Immigrants are rightly nervous about government officials - especially when the administration or party setting policy leans towards authoritarianism, as in the Trump years. THAT is why immigrants may be wary of voluntarily going some place to get vaccinated."
But Trump isn't in office, are you suggesting that immigrants are to ignorant to know that it's safe now? Or are you suggesting that thousands of unscreened, untested, unvaccinated, unquarantined immigrants pose absolutely zero threat to the US during this global health crisis caused by a global pandemic?
"Again, I get that you isolate yourself from such unsavory refugee matters (in spite of helping some folks from other nations - you'd think that would make you more sympathetic, not less), but I'd also think that you would have at least heard these sorts of reports in the news."
Again, setting up a straw man, and reacting based on your preconceptions and prejudices isn't helpful.
"Perhaps the problem is in your "news" source?"
Perhaps the problem is your assumptions about me.
Perhaps the problem is that it's inconsistent to insist that all of the draconian measures imposed by the state/federal governments, are absolutely necessary to contain this health crisis/pandemic while simultaneously advocating for virtually unrestricted immigration of untested, unvaccinated, unquarantined, unscreened people.
The question remains. Are Canada's draconian restrictions appropriate in this time of a global health crisis/pandemic, and if they are why the US isn't using the same sort of restrictions?
Craig... "1. Yes. The fact that we are seeing thousands of immigrants crossing the border illegally, indicates that they are (by their actions) refusing to be screened upon entry."
Do you recognize that it is our unwelcoming immigration laws that CREATE the perceived (or real) need to cross without documentation/permission?
IF we had a system in place that was accommodating and welcoming to refugees, THEN we wouldn't have people sneaking in in large numbers.
Not sure what is hard to follow: IF people in another nation are threatened with violence or hunger, THEN they will try to find a safer, freer nation.
IF the neighboring safe nations are not welcoming, THEN people will find ways to escape to safety in spite of the laws.
Because OF COURSE they will and SHOULD.
What kind of evil parent would say, "Well, my family's life is at risk where we're living. My daughter may be raped any day now and my son killed. There is a safe nation 100 miles away, but they won't let us in because they don't think our situation meets their definition of refugee. So, we'll just stay here and die and be raped. Wouldn't want to violate their laws..."? What kind of awful person would say that? What sort of awful person would prevent them from seeking safety?
Craig... "But Trump isn't in office, are you suggesting that immigrants are to ignorant to know that it's safe now?"
It's NOT safe now. Biden's INS policies are not as draconian as Trump's, but neither are they ones that make it safe to be a refugee. I don't know what part of Biden's policies are not as bad as Trump's but they're still bad you're failing to understand.
And WHY are Biden's policies bad? In large part, because he has to deal with the reality of half of Congress (mainly the Republicans) who are virulently opposed to helping more refugees. While this should be a no-brainer bit of human rights policies that everyone should agree on, for Biden to focus on this and make it even better requires political capital and he's working with an obstructionist GOP party.
Craig...
"Or are you suggesting that thousands of unscreened, untested, unvaccinated, unquarantined immigrants pose absolutely zero threat to the US during this global health crisis caused by a global pandemic?"
No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm noting the reality that IF their lives are threatened imminently in their homelands, THEN the concern about a potential virus infection are a lower concern for them.
People who are seeking freedom and safety have to prioritize their competing needs and NOT BEING SHOT AND RAPED outweighs getting a vaccine to prevent a potential disease.
Again, I completely fail to understand what you find vexing and hard to understand in this scenario.
Tell me, Craig, if the US where you live became an unsafe place for you and your family and you were threatened to be raped and killed in the coming week and IF you could escape to safety in Mexico and IF Mexico said you didn't meet their definition of a refugee and refused to let you enter legally, would you break the laws to save your family?
If not, what sort of monster are you?
Unjust laws were made to be broken, as a matter of justice.
If you were living in the ~half of our nation's history where slavery was legal, would you refuse to break laws to save slaves, as well?
"And so for many white people, their privilege means they have a hard time comprehending the notion of positive discrimination. But, given the reality of even the reality of systemic oppression of black people, of course we should then discriminate in a positive manner. And we should be able to recognize the difference between discrimination FOR Justice as opposed to discrimination as an act of injustice. Can you?"
I can understand why you and others believe that the best way to impose "justice" is to engage in unjust behavior targeted against those you perceive to be deserving of said injustice. Kind of like preserving virginity by advocating promiscuous sex.
For example. Instead of discriminating against certain sub groups of poor people, why not simply work to help ALL poor people?
The question that seems to be unanswered (certainly by Dan) is how is success defined? What measurable, specific, trackable metrics are used to determine when it's appropriate to end this "righteous discrimination"?
"Do you recognize that it is our unwelcoming immigration laws that CREATE the perceived (or real) need to cross without documentation/permission?"
Yes, I understand that ANY immigration laws (no matter how rational and intelligent) restrict the ability of free movement across national borders. Just like the draconian laws in Canada that you seem to find appropriate and good.
"IF we had a system in place that was accommodating and welcoming to refugees, THEN we wouldn't have people sneaking in in large numbers. Not sure what is hard to follow: IF people in another nation are threatened with violence or hunger, THEN they will try to find a safer, freer nation."
Now I'm confused. You just said that our laws "CREATE" the problem, but now you are saying that conditions in other countries create the impetus to migrate. Which is it?
"IF the neighboring safe nations are not welcoming, THEN people will find ways to escape to safety in spite of the laws. Because OF COURSE they will and SHOULD. What kind of evil parent would say, "Well, my family's life is at risk where we're living. My daughter may be raped any day now and my son killed. There is a safe nation 100 miles away, but they won't let us in because they don't think our situation meets their definition of refugee. So, we'll just stay here and die and be raped. Wouldn't want to violate their laws..."?"
Interesting that you seem to think that there are no options other than illegally crossing the US border for this hypothetical family.
"What kind of awful person would say that? What sort of awful person would prevent them from seeking safety?"
I know of no one who is saying that, or that is suggesting that they de denied the opportunity to "seek safety".
"Biden's INS policies are not as draconian as Trump's, but neither are they ones that make it safe to be a refugee."
Please, what specific policies are you talking about? What policies has the Biden administration changed?
"I don't know what part of Biden's policies are not as bad as Trump's but they're still bad you're failing to understand. And WHY are Biden's policies bad?"
So, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just operating on your assumptions, and blaming everyone except Biden.
"In large part, because he has to deal with the reality of half of Congress (mainly the Republicans) who are virulently opposed to helping more refugees."
1. The GOP represents LESS than 1/2 of the legislative branch.
2. The GOP does not control either house of the legislative branch.
3. What specific policies has the Biden administration or those DFL folks who control both houses of the legislative branch proposed that have been defeated by the GOP? Specific bills that have actually been presented only.
"While this should be a no-brainer bit of human rights policies that everyone should agree on, for Biden to focus on this and make it even better requires political capital and he's working with an obstructionist GOP party."
What specific legislative items has the GOP obstructed? For that matter, what did the P-BO administration do when they controlled the entire legialstive branch?
"No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm noting the reality that IF their lives are threatened imminently in their homelands, THEN the concern about a potential virus infection are a lower concern for them. People who are seeking freedom and safety have to prioritize their competing needs and NOT BEING SHOT AND RAPED outweighs getting a vaccine to prevent a potential disease."
What a strange dichotomy. You seem to have been suggesting that COVID is a dire threat to the entire planet and that draconian measures are appropriate in order to prevent even more death and destruction from COVID, while suggesting that those measure NOT include the thousands of immigrants crossing our borders. Seems contradictory to suggest that Canada imposing "temporary" draconian measures that prevent virtually ALL border crossings are rational and appropriate, while similar "temporary" measures in the US are evil.
"Again, I completely fail to understand what you find vexing and hard to understand in this scenario. Tell me, Craig, if the US where you live became an unsafe place for you and your family and you were threatened to be raped and killed in the coming week and IF you could escape to safety in Mexico and IF Mexico said you didn't meet their definition of a refugee and refused to let you enter legally, would you break the laws to save your family?"
If MN because the sort of dystopian wasteland you suggest, my first response would be to do whatever I could to fight to preserve my community. If that failed, I'd relocate to somewhere safe within the US.
"If not, what sort of monster are you?"
The kind of "monster" that doesn't think that turning tail and running away in the face of injustice is an option. One who values what freedom we have enough that I wouldn't simply give up an run when faced with danger.
"Unjust laws were made to be broken, as a matter of justice. If you were living in the ~half of our nation's history where slavery was legal, would you refuse to break laws to save slaves, as well?"
I'm not sure about breaking laws, but I'd have been one of the hundreds of thousands of men who risked life and limb to eliminate slavery.
"Noting that someone who can't/won't distinguish between "discriminating" on behalf of Justice as opposed to someone discriminating to cause INJUSTICE is operating at a grade school level of moral reasoning is not an ad hom attack."
well done, you've attempted to dodge the reality of your frequent Ad Hom attacks, by actually engaging in additional Ad Hom attacks. Please show me where you've demonstrated the absolute Truth of your "grade school level of moral reasoning" claim. No, I'll wait until you do. It's fine.
"It's an accurate description of an undeveloped moral conscience."
Please, provide the proof of this claim. I'll wait for this as well. If I were you, and I wanted to continue to comment, I'd make proving these claims an absolute priority.
"Early grade schoolers are operating in the concrete operational stage (re: Piaget). They take things woodenly, literally. IF "discrimination" is bad, when we're talking about discriminating against black or gay folk or women for who they are, then "discriminating" is a bad word. That's grade school, as an apt description literally, not an ad hom attack."
Again, the lack of proof of these Ad Hom attacks is stunning.
"Do you understand that distinction?"
I understand that you believe that there is a distinction, and that you believe that this distinction is vital. What I'm missing is your actually proving that your perceptions and hunches are objectively true.
"Now, by all means, actually answer the question: DO YOU understand the difference between being discriminating FOR just reasons as opposed to the immoral discrimination for UNjust reasons?"
You literally asked this same idiotic question in the previous lines of the same comment. Are you such a fucking moron as to not understand how idiotic it is to ask the same question over and over again, without even giving me a chance to answer?
"Do you understand why one is bad and shouldn't be done and one is GOOD and SHOULD be done?"
I understand why you believe that, I haven't seen you prove that your hunch is correct in an objective sense.
"Saying, "I do understand the distinction. I THINK I've posted on it before" is not a satisfying answer, especially when you continue to act like discriminating FOR justice is bad."
1. I really don't give a shit if my pointing out reality is "satisfying" to you. Your satisfaction is the least of my concerns.
2. I'm "acting" like your hunches about "discrimination for justice" haven't been proven to be objectively good. Or proven to be just, or proven to be anything other than discriminating on the basis if skin color.
"DO YOU think that all forms of discrimination in hiring practices are bad, even if it's being done for reasons of justice?"
I think that hiring based on primarily or only on superficial characteristics where qualifications, or other factors are ignored or minimized is a mistake. I think that engaging in injustice for the sake of "justice" simply leads to more oppression.
I think that hiring on any basis is a decision reserved for the business owner who expended his time, effort, finances, etc., to create the business in the first place. Whether or not I agree with his hiring based on the most superficial of characteristics is immaterial and irrelevant to whether or not it is his right in a nation founded on the notion of individual liberty. Let him rise or fall because of his choices. We are all better off for it. I totally support the right of a business owner to hire or serve customers based solely on his own criteria, short of that which leads to death or serious injury of others.
I don't particularly believe it is an intelligent or moral attitude for a business owner to deny in hiring or customer service any person due to reasons such as race, sex or ethnicity, but if we were to punish people for stupidity, Dan wouldn't see the light of day for the rest of his life.
Being a boy of little brain, Dan can't provide a worthy argument against our immigration policy (pre-Brain-Dead Biden, the same race of moron as Dan). To Dan, the mere claim of "I'm a refugee" must be respected. No proof needed. It is not for our government to dictate what constitutes a legit claim. The health and safety of our citizens is of no concern.
But let's say we were to agree that all who claim asylum are to be believed without question as Dan's fake compassion contends. Let them all wait in line where legal entry is provided and allow all citizens whose properties and lives are threatened by the constant march of total strangers across their properties to shoot trespassers at their own discretion. I propose this because no excuse should be tolerated for those who sneak across hoping to get lost among the 320 million citizens of this country. One way we can presume to trust an alleged "refugee" is by the fact that said "refugee" waited at the border to be allowed entry, rather than sneak across the border and then claim asylum the moment he's caught.
But this is really all deflection, isn't it? It's Dan standard stupidity which he compounds with stupid "what if's?" The real issue is Biden's rejection of sense and reason, something which comes from voting Democrat in the first place and something to which Dan can easily and eagerly relate, in throwing open the doors of the house with assurances he won't tell anyone to leave for any reason. Oh sure...there are weak assurances to his own people regarding the most violent of criminals...as if he's put in place a method to cull them from the herd. But only the stupidest Dan buys that crap. And laying this policy against the senseless covid related mandates puts to rest any question as to whether we'd be better off voting for this shit-for-brains over Trump. Only a morons were willing to risk what was so obvious to Trump voters. Now we're living it, and the border crime is but one example.
Craig...
"I think that hiring based on primarily or only on superficial characteristics where qualifications, or other factors are ignored or minimized is a mistake."
1. I have not ever said that hiring should be based with no regards to qualifications. That is, I have never said that if the job was Doctor and there were no black doctors on staff, that the employer should hire a black person who wasn't a doctor for the sake of diversity.
That is an insanely stupid thing to suggest and I have never suggested it. I've always been abundantly clear that people who are hired should be qualified for a job because OF COURSE, they should.
You understand now that I've never advocating hiring someone who wasn't qualified for the sake of diversity is NOT anything I have ever said and that this is just a ridiculously stupid strawman argument?
2. IF my agency/company has NO black people on staff, then it is of course NOT a "superficial characteristic" to consider race when hiring. Do you understand that?
3. Do you understand that our nation has a centuries long history of oppressing and denying jobs and opportunities to black folk and BECAUSE OF those racist policies, we still face the impact of a lack of diversity in key jobs and that we can't cure problems brought on by racist policies by ignoring race?
Craig... " I think that engaging in injustice for the sake of "justice" simply leads to more oppression."
4. It is NOT an injustice to want to increase the racial or other diversity of one's staff. Is that part of the problem? You really think that it's UNJUST to want to increase diversity??!! If so, do you recognize how incredibly wrong that opinion is?
Given a choice between a qualified white job candidate and a qualified black job candidate, it is NOT UNJUST to consider their race (or gender or orientation or disability...). Do you understand?
If you think so, that's part of the problem. You have a fundamental lack of understanding on concerns of justice.
Or is all this faux concern about Justice going back to you thinking somehow I was talking about hiring unqualified people for jobs simply for diversity sake? If that's it, well, I've corrected you already.
So, NOW do you understand why all your comments in those two sentences are wrong?
Craig... "I understand that you believe that there is a distinction, and that you believe that this distinction is vital. What I'm missing is your actually proving that your perceptions and hunches are objectively true."
I was giving the two of you the benefit of the doubt that you were at least passingly familiar with philosophical notions of moral development - Piaget, Gilligan, Erickson, Kohlberg, etc and their theories. I know that they're probably college-level reading, but I've read these notions outside of college as well as inside.
If you're not familiar with these theories, that is part of the problem and I assumed too much. For that (if that's the case), I'm sorry. I make the mistake of forgetting not everyone's read the same material I've read. I'm a moral reasoning nerd, that way.
Here are some primers on these theories, if you're interested...
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/adolescent/chapter/theories-moral-development/
The short of it all, however, is that moral theorists tend to agree with what I think is at least somewhat rational and intuitive for all of us - that moral growth occurs in stages. You don't come out of the womb with a well-developed sense of morality. You're taught and you grow into it.
But these theorists all tend to agree that some levels/understanding of morality just aren't possible for younger intellects. Children of a certain age, for instance, just think concretely and abstract reasoning is beyond their capacity. Which is why empathy is something we grow into and don't have instinctively at age 3, for instance. Nuanced understanding of justice is not something we have at five years old or even have the capacity for, generally.
Is any of that sounding rational to you or something that you may have read somewhere along the line? If so, do you have some reason to disagree with some aspect of it?
Craig... "I understand why you believe that, I haven't seen you prove that your hunch is correct in an objective sense."
Given the situation of two qualified candidates - one white and one black - and having NO racial minorities in a company, you do not rationally see why it would STRENGTHEN that company to hire the black person?
Are you familiar with the studies that demonstrate why diversity is good for bottom lines and developing strong companies/agencies? If so, do you disagree with those studies or do they make sense to you?
"If we look at the most innovative, disruptive and prosperous urban centres in the world – New York, Dubai, London and Singapore – they all have one thing in common. They are all international melting pots with a high concentration of immigrants. Research shows that there is a direct correlation between high-skilled immigration and an increase in the level of innovation and economic performance in cities and regions."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/business-case-for-diversity-in-the-workplace/
And to be clear, it's not "good" JUST by measuring the bottom line (it makes more money - which is neither good or bad in and of itself). It's good because it boosts innovation and buy in and community and all manner of objective positives.
For one thing, having racially diverse staff in schools benefits especially minority children who now have more role models and something to which to aspire. But it's not just the minority children who benefit. All children do. Again, according to research.
https://online.queens.edu/resources/article/benefits-of-diversity-in-school/
So, IF you can agree that diversity helps improve companies, agencies, educational groups churches and, well, all of us... THEN can you see why it's rational AND just - demonstrably so - to choose to diversify?
And to do that, one MUST pay attention to race?
The thing is with so many conservatives complaining about being "color blind," is that one can't fix racial inequities by ignoring race. The descendants of white oppressors are often the first to say it's time to move on and be more color blind. But that very declaration is part of the continuation of the racist systems we should be working against as moral agents concerned with justice.
One can't increase the diversity of one's business/agency/etc without paying attention to diversity. Random samplings won't fix that problem. And it IS a problem, one can't deny.
Do you want to try to deny?
Craig... " I really don't give a shit if my pointing out reality is "satisfying" to you."
I'm sorry you misunderstood and I didn't make myself more clear: Saying "I do understand the distinction, I think I've posted on it before..." is not RATIONALLY satisfying answer to the question being asked. It has nothing to do with me. It fails, rationally.
"1. I have not ever said that hiring should be based with no regards to qualifications. That is, I have never said that if the job was Doctor and there were no black doctors on staff, that the employer should hire a black person who wasn't a doctor for the sake of diversity. That is an insanely stupid thing to suggest and I have never suggested it. I've always been abundantly clear that people who are hired should be qualified for a job because OF COURSE, they should. You understand now that I've never advocating hiring someone who wasn't qualified for the sake of diversity is NOT anything I have ever said and that this is just a ridiculously stupid strawman argument?"
1. I've never claimed that you've said any of that, but using a straw man to attack an alleged straw man is as impressive as using an Ad Hom to attack an Ad Hom.
2. Maybe you should read my actual comment, before constructing your straw man based on your misinterpretation of what I actually said.
3. To use a more realistic version of your hypothetical. Let's say that you had two doctors applying for a job. One a POC who finished 400th out of 500 in their medical school class, and one a "white" person who finished 20th out of 500. The first person finished with a 3.1 GPA and the second with a 3.9 GPA. (With the caveat that the minimums are good enough or they wouldn't be the minimums) Would it be reasonable to hire the "less qualified" POC simply because of their kin color?
"2. IF my agency/company has NO black people on staff, then it is of course NOT a "superficial characteristic" to consider race when hiring. Do you understand that?"
Impressive, Dan just decrees that skin color is not a "superficial characteristic", and magically skin color becomes vital.
"3. Do you understand that our nation has a centuries long history of oppressing and denying jobs and opportunities to black folk and BECAUSE OF those racist policies, we still face the impact of a lack of diversity in key jobs and that we can't cure problems brought on by racist policies by ignoring race?"
1. So does virtually every other society/country in history.
2. Where did I use the term "ignoring race"?
"4. It is NOT an injustice to want to increase the racial or other diversity of one's staff."
1. I never addressed "increasing diversity".
2. I simply pointed out that using unjust practices to achieve "justice" is contradictory.
"Is that part of the problem? You really think that it's UNJUST to want to increase diversity??!!"
No, I think that diversity of skin color solely for the sake of diversity of skin color is a foolish goal for a business. I think that trying to use unjust means to achieve this "diversity" is still unjust. Define the perfect level of diversity for an individual business?
"If so, do you recognize how incredibly wrong that opinion is?"
For someone who's spent years arguing that opinions aren't wrong, this makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps if you'd define your terms, and accurately represent what I've said, it could make some more sense.
"Given a choice between a qualified white job candidate and a qualified black job candidate, it is NOT UNJUST to consider their race (or gender or orientation or disability...). Do you understand?"
I understand that you believe this to be True. Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that your belief is objectively True.
"If you think so, that's part of the problem. You have a fundamental lack of understanding on concerns of justice. Or is all this faux concern about Justice going back to you thinking somehow I was talking about hiring unqualified people for jobs simply for diversity sake?"
I guess if you think that mischaracterizing my position and arguing against that straw man is a great victory, then well done.
"If that's it, well, I've corrected you already. So, NOW do you understand why all your comments in those two sentences are wrong?"
My disagreeing with your unproven opinions, doesn't actually address whether or not either is right or wrong.
"I was giving the two of you the benefit of the doubt that you were at least passingly familiar with philosophical notions of moral development - Piaget, Gilligan, Erickson, Kohlberg, etc and their theories. I know that they're probably college-level reading, but I've read these notions outside of college as well as inside. If you're not familiar with these theories, that is part of the problem and I assumed too much. For that (if that's the case), I'm sorry. I make the mistake of forgetting not everyone's read the same material I've read. I'm a moral reasoning nerd, that way."
That's quite the combination of passive/aggressive and Ad Hom.
"Here are some primers on these theories, if you're interested... https://courses.lumenlearning.com/adolescent/chapter/theories-moral-development/ The short of it all, however, is that moral theorists tend to agree with what I think is at least somewhat rational and intuitive for all of us - that moral growth occurs in stages. You don't come out of the womb with a well-developed sense of morality. You're taught and you grow into it. But these theorists all tend to agree that some levels/understanding of morality just aren't possible for younger intellects. Children of a certain age, for instance, just think concretely and abstract reasoning is beyond their capacity. Which is why empathy is something we grow into and don't have instinctively at age 3, for instance. Nuanced understanding of justice is not something we have at five years old or even have the capacity for, generally. Is any of that sounding rational to you or something that you may have read somewhere along the line?"
Why yes, the notion that all of human development is a continuum that starts at conception and develops throughout one's life is something that should go without saying, but you felt compelled to restate the obvious and embellish it with a garnish of self aggrandizement.
"If so, do you have some reason to disagree with some aspect of it?"
Given your broad, undetailed, and no doubt biased version of these philosophers theories, there's really nothing of substance to agree/disagree with.
The problem is that you are conflating agreeing/disagreeing with the theories of a subset of philosophers with being right or wrong on the topic.
This is further a problem when you consider that most sociologists (and the dictionary) would argue that morality is subjective and defined by the society/group and that most evolutionary biologists (materialist/naturalist/Darwinian) would argue that that nature is amoral (at it's core) and that the only relevant qualification is survival of the fittest.
"Given the situation of two qualified candidates - one white and one black - and having NO racial minorities in a company, you do not rationally see why it would STRENGTHEN that company to hire the black person?"
1. This doesn't answer the question.
2. No, I see no objective reason why the skin color of one candidate would automatically and inevitably "strengthen" the company.
3. Given that "strengthen" is a vague and undefined term, I have no basis to judge.
"Are you familiar with the studies that demonstrate why diversity is good for bottom lines and developing strong companies/agencies?"
No.
"If so, do you disagree with those studies or do they make sense to you?"
Given that I'm not familiar with all of the specific studies that you googled, nor am I familiar with the organizations that conducted all of the studies you googles, nor am I familiar with the studies that reach different conclusions, and given the vagueness of your terms, it would be absurd if I agreed or disagreed with these studies.
"If we look at the most innovative, disruptive and prosperous urban centres in the world – New York, Dubai, London and Singapore – they all have one thing in common. They are all international melting pots with a high concentration of immigrants. Research shows that there is a direct correlation between high-skilled immigration and an increase in the level of innovation and economic performance in cities and regions." https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/business-case-for-diversity-in-the-workplace/ And to be clear, it's not "good" JUST by measuring the bottom line (it makes more money - which is neither good or bad in and of itself)."
Actually the entire point of a company is the bottom line. Making money is why companies exist.
"It's good because it boosts innovation and buy in and community and all manner of objective positives."
Those are only "objectively positive" IF they lead to achieving the goals and purposes of the company in question (making a profit).
"For one thing, having racially diverse staff in schools benefits especially minority children who now have more role models and something to which to aspire. But it's not just the minority children who benefit. All children do. Again, according to research. https://online.queens.edu/resources/article/benefits-of-diversity-in-school/ So, IF you can agree that diversity helps improve companies, agencies, educational groups churches and, well, all of us... THEN can you see why it's rational AND just - demonstrably so - to choose to diversify?"
Given the fact that you've chosen not to define what constitutes improvement or success, I'm at a bit of a loss. For example. If a school district has a "diverse" faculty (only in terms of skin color), and the children "feel good" because they see teachers who "look like them", but these children are failing academically, how does one consider that a successful outcome?
"And to do that, one MUST pay attention to race? The thing is with so many conservatives complaining about being "color blind," is that one can't fix racial inequities by ignoring race."
Are you suggesting that all "racial inequities" can be fixed? Are you suggesting that the fix is to always focus primarily on race/
"The descendants of white oppressors are often the first to say it's time to move on and be more color blind. But that very declaration is part of the continuation of the racist systems we should be working against as moral agents concerned with justice."
Blah, blah, blah, these backhanded accusations of racism or white supremacy are getting old.
"One can't increase the diversity of one's business/agency/etc without paying attention to diversity. Random samplings won't fix that problem. And it IS a problem, one can't deny. Do you want to try to deny?"
If the goal is to increase "diversity" based on only/primarily one superficial metric then sure.
"is not RATIONALLY satisfying answer to the question being asked. It has nothing to do with me. It fails, rationally."
Given your apparent belief that your version of "Rationality" is the only version of "Rationality", I can see why this might be confusing for you. For the rest of us, who don't share your conviction or your high opinion of your "Rationality", it does.
Again, I don't give a shit if you're satisfied. "Rationality" isn't a sentient being, and therefore can't be "satisfied".
For clarification, the percentages of the US population break down (roughly) as follows.
White 68%
Black/African 13%
Latino 18%
Asian 6%
Native American 1%
If the goal of any organization is "diversity" as defined by skin color ("race"/ethnicity), then the ideal for all organizations would look something like the above breakdown, wouldn't it?
If (for example) a school district had the following "diversity" breakdown in it's administration/teachers, would it be considered "diverse" enough?
White 52%
Black 31 %
Latino 10%
Asian 7%
Now if the students in this district had a graduation rate of 75%, with reading proficiency below 70%, and math proficiency was below 60%, would anyone consider that district successful?
Craig... "Would it be reasonable to hire the "less qualified" POC simply because of their kin color?"
You are making an assumption that education does not support. Education and GPA are not the be all, end all of what makes one qualified. Again, given two qualified candidates - and in this case they are both qualified - if the hospital has no black doctors then of course, that would add to the medical experience at that hospital to have that black doctor on staff. I'm not sure what you're failing to understand.
There are all manner of criteria as to what makes one a qualified job candidate. GPA or place in class may be informative, but so would volunteer experience. So would background. So would connections. So would experience.
Did that black doctor have a lower GPA because he was also working a full time job and raising a family? That would be impressive as hell to me. Did the white doctor get good grades because his family was well connected and wealthy and he didn't have to work? Well good on him for earning a good GPA in that circumstance but there's more to it than just GPA.
Of course.
Seriously. Do you not understand the great value that having a diverse staff brings to a company or agency?
Craig... "Actually the entire point of a company is the bottom line. Making money is why companies exist."
?!
Do you personally believe this? As sure as hell don't.
In a rational and moral and decent society, the point of business should never be just the bottom line. That is wishing for a demonic, diabolical hellish workplace.
Tell me you don't accept this bit of a amoral, godless and unchristian vomitus as rational or acceptable?
This is precisely the problem of the perversion of trump style conservatism. It is deviant, perverse and ghastly.
As to the rest of it, I would just encourage you to read more about moral development and what the data and research says about diversity.
"You are making an assumption that education does not support. Education and GPA are not the be all, end all of what makes one qualified."
No, I'm not. I'm simply simplifying the example to some very easily understood, quantifiable, metrics that would be considered when hiring a Dr. I also addressed this.
"Again, given two qualified candidates - and in this case they are both qualified - if the hospital has no black doctors then of course, that would add to the medical experience at that hospital to have that black doctor on staff."
Although they are both qualified, I'd ague that based on the two criteria I mentioned that they are not equally qualified. Beyond that you're simply assuming that having a black Dr brings some unquantifiable improvement.
"I'm not sure what you're failing to understand. There are all manner of criteria as to what makes one a qualified job candidate. GPA or place in class may be informative, but so would volunteer experience. So would background. So would connections. So would experience. Did that black doctor have a lower GPA because he was also working a full time job and raising a family? That would be impressive as hell to me. Did the white doctor get good grades because his family was well connected and wealthy and he didn't have to work? Well good on him for earning a good GPA in that circumstance but there's more to it than just GPA. Of course."
Those are all relevant factors that would be considered, but you're talking about one factor (skin color) being the determining factor. Which has nothing to do with any of the rest.
"Seriously. Do you not understand the great value that having a diverse staff brings to a company or agency?"
Seriously, in the absence of any quantifiable metrics being offered to demonstrate the objective value that "having a diverse staff" (to the exclusion of all else) brings, I don't see the value in focusing on one form of "diversity" as some sort of magic bullet".
"Do you personally believe this?"
As someone who is (and has been) self employed (a very small company), the answer is of course I believe it. If I don't make money (not just make money, but make a profit), then my bills don't get paid, my kids don't have clothes, my family doesn't have food, charities that I support don't get that support, and so on. Obviously my primary goal is to provide financial support for myself and my family. If you've ever spent any time in the non profit world, you'll notice how much of the time and effort of the organization is spent raising money, because without money nobody gets helped.
"As sure as hell don't."
I don' care what you think. Especially when it contradicts basic economics.
"In a rational and moral and decent society, the point of business should never be just the bottom line."
Ahhhhhhhh, there it is. The goal post move, the misrepresentation, the straw man, or whatever you call it.
"That is wishing for a demonic, diabolical hellish workplace."
Whatever.
"Tell me you don't accept this bit of a amoral, godless and unchristian vomitus as rational or acceptable?"
What? That people start business to make money? Sorry, that's Econ 101.
"This is precisely the problem of the perversion of trump style conservatism. It is deviant, perverse and ghastly."
Ahhhhhhhhh, the Trump blaming, ad hom attacks. Because absolutely no one who's not a "trump style conservative" starts a business to make money. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, etc- all "trump style conservatives".
Dan,
FYI, if the organization you work for doesn't focus on making money first, then they'll fire you to cut back on expenses.
Dan,
Just to clarify. If I run my business in such a way that I don't provide value for my clients, then they will choose to work with someone else and my revenue/profit will suffer. Therefore, all of the services I provide (while they are helpful and appreciated by my clients) aren't (for the most part) driven by altruism, they are driven by the realization that good service is what drives my income.
Craig... "Although they are both qualified, I'd ague that based on the two criteria I mentioned that they are not equally qualified. Beyond that you're simply assuming that having a black Dr brings some unquantifiable improvement."
It seems to me that YOU are assuming that the black doctor would not automatically be bringing something different than the white doctor... the black perspective. That's the point. We HAVE to recognize that in our world, flawed as it is, that people from historically oppressed groups ARE going to be bringing some perspective that we, as white straight men are not going to have.
The black experience, while perhaps somewhat unquantifiable, can not be ignored or pretend that it doesn't exist.
Is that the case for you? That you don't think being black (or gay or transgender or a woman...) does not bring some INNATELY new/different perspective that a white straight male just can't bring?
Craig... "but you're talking about one factor (skin color) being the determining factor."
No. No. No. Look at that simple two letter word. Consider it's meaning. Dig deep and try to understand: NO, That is NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. That is a moronically false claim to make because I have NEVER SAID THAT.
So, NO, I am NOT talking about one factor being the determining factor. I've already made that abundantly clear to you in this conversation - One must FIRST BE qualified for the position. Being qualified (having the necessary training or certifications, etc) IS a determining factor as well. There are MANY determining factors - an ability to do the job, for instance. If the job requires climbing telephone poles and the applicant has no arms or legs, then THAT would be a determining factor and I'm not excluding that. On and on I can go. There are MANY determining factors in considering a potential job candidate.
And ONE of them is race. What I'm saying is that diversity (racial, gender, sexual orientation, etc) IS a good thing to keep in mind in the mix of who to hire and it is a vital and important factor, but not the only one.
The problem appears to be you want to deny it should be a factor at all.
Craig... " in the absence of any quantifiable metrics being offered to demonstrate the objective value that "having a diverse staff" (to the exclusion of all else) brings"
First of all, as repeatedly pointed out to you, I HAVE NOT SAID TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL ELSE!! So just let that go. Dump that shit you're holding so tightly to into the toilet and flush, brother. It's just so much waste.
Secondly, seriously - just go read the research on the enormous value of diversity to workplaces and societies. Do your own searches or look at the ones I've sent above or here are some more. This is well-studied and settled science. Quantifiable metrics. I'm surprised you weren't aware of this thoroughly researched data.
Here are SEVEN different studies demonstrating what probably should be innately obvious...
https://blog.capterra.com/7-studies-that-prove-the-value-of-diversity-in-the-workplace/
Here's another report...
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters#
From the Wall Street Journal...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-business-case-for-more-diversity-11572091200
Here they point out that hundreds of studies have been done on this topic and they show why diversity is valued and valuable.
https://www.glassdoor.com/employers/blog/diversity-inclusion-research-roundup-top-studies-you-need-to-know/
Or from Entrepreneur Magazine...
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/322307
The data is solid and the case is rational in the extreme. OF COURSE, we benefit from having a workforce that is diverse and inclusive. How could anyone think otherwise just from an intuitively rational point of view? Whatever happened to good ol' common sense?
Craig...
"Actually the entire point of a company is the bottom line.
Making money is why companies exist."
I asked you to clarify if you really mean this. You answered...
"the answer is of course I believe it.
If I don't make money (not just make money, but make a profit,
then my bills don't get paid,
my kids don't have clothes,
my family doesn't have food..."
Hm. I would disagree. I think Jesus would disagree.
THE point of everything - including businesses, according to many conservative Christians I know, is to bring glory to God.
The point of everything including businesses, according to many/most/all? of my progress and reasonable, moral moderate friends is to do good. Do you have a business? Then do work with that business.
Don't pollute.
Don't cheat.
Don't be unkind.
Be a good employer.
Don't engage in businesses that are harmful.
Don't place the bottom line ahead of doing good.
At my agency where I work, doing good work - helping folks with disabilities get jobs, find housing, get connected to the community, have healthy options, etc - is THE BOTTOM LINE.
Yes, we strive to find ways to pay for the good work we're doing, but financial income is not the bottom line. AT ALL. The bottom line is good lives for historically oppressed people. Justice. Jobs. Homes. Health. THAT is - and I think should - be the bottom line of any enterprise.
Not merely money.
That sounds very much more Ayn Rand than Jesus. Indeed, it sounds contrary to Jesus' teachings.
"Do not worry about your clothes or building bigger barns. Seek first the Kingdom of God, look out for the least of these, set aside food for the marginalized, welcome the stranger, etc..." (summing up some verses together, there.) THESE should be the bottom line for those who wish to follow Jesus, seems to me. It's what he taught, after all.
I'm not saying businesses or agencies should not pay attention to "the bottom line." My point is making financial considerations the bottom line will almost inevitably lead to corrupted, trumpian, perverse outcomes.
It's Wendell Berry says about environmental concerns - we must recognize the economy as a subset of the environment, not the other way around.
Or, again, as Jesus said, "Seek first the kingdom of God..."
So when you say, " If I run my business in such a way that I don't provide value for my clients, then they will choose to work with someone else and my revenue/profit will suffer."
IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE VALUE. That's the bottom line.
Doing good work. Providing value. Doing work that is helpful, wholesome and profitable to our health, environment and society THAT is the bottom line. The money needed to make that happen is a side consideration, but doing good work, THAT is the bottom line.
Is that not part of what you're saying there?
Craig... " if the organization you work for doesn't focus on making money first, then they'll fire you to cut back on expenses."
And this statement of yours is why you're mistaken/taking a mistaken direction.
IF I do not do good work, help people connect with employers and have a good life, THEN they will fire me. Indeed, we're in the middle of a new endeavor/approach to how we do the work we do. The financial bottom line is NOT the consideration that is most important. Good work, that's the bottom line.
Trying to do it the other way (making financial considerations THE BOTTOM LINE most important thing to consider) will only result in perverse and not-good work. See Trumpworld.
Craig... " If you've ever spent any time in the non profit world, you'll notice how much of the time and effort of the organization is spent raising money, because without money nobody gets helped."
I'm in the non-profit world. And one thing we and other non-profits do is work for changes in the systems so that we don't have to rely upon charity (which we do some of, as well). In our particular circumstance, we promote advocating for changes in payment systems from Medicaid or Vocational Rehab so that the money that goes to support folks with disabilities is sufficient to meet the need so that non-profits don't have to go begging so much.
It benefits society - all of us - when folks with disabilities are employed and so, society would be smart to help make the INVESTMENTS as a matter of justice so that the support is there so that folks with disabilities CAN be employed... and make their own money and, in some cases, work their way out of depending on gov't dollars and being part of the group of citizens that are paying to help OTHERS in their time of need. As an investment in justice, not as a charity.
That's our model, anyway.
And the point would remain doing the good work that makes sense, not merely the financial bottom line.
From some conservative Christian business man...
"It is my belief that the overriding priority of our businesses (as well as our very lives) is to bring glory to God...
https://www.christianfaithatwork.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-christian-business/
Or this traditional Christian...
"So let’s be clear – what is a business for? It has two primary purposes –
to serve the common good of the community with goods and services that contribute to human flourishing and
to provide meaningful work that develops its employees."
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2014/what-s-the-purpose-of-a-christian-business-can-you-make-a-profit-and-make-a-difference
Or, yet another (and I could go on and on) traditional-sounding conservative Christian who does not list the financial bottom line as The primary concern of a business, at least not for Christians...
https://hbu.edu/center-for-christianity-in-business/2017/01/19/four-qualities-christ-centered-business-christ-centered-business-not/
I could go on and on.
I hope you can begin to understand how... earthly, Trump-y, Rand-y your response sounds, as opposed to sounding Christian or even just moral and rational.
Dan talking about running a business is like a small child talking about quantum physics.
What the hell is "Trump-style conservatism", anyway?
Diversity for the sake of diversity doesn't strengthen anything. It makes nothing better simply because one has four brunettes and three blondes and a redhead. It's absurd. Now, if all those chicks are brilliant, hard working, imaginative...and not jerks...then they will be of great benefit to the company. Their physical differences play no role. The same with skin color.
Read the data.
We have hundreds of studies from experts who disagree with Marshal.
And we have Marshal who says - with NO expertise and NO study and NO data - that he knows better than these experts and these studies which he is almost certainly ignorant of.
THAT is "trump-style conservatism." It is a hyper-partisan and just ignorant (and joyfully ignorant) and anti-expert approach to life with very little concern for actual facts and truth. It is a great embarrassment to the intellectual giants of the past who were more conservative.
Disagree? Then WHY do you dismiss out of hand ALL these various studies and research, if you're not anti-expert? Be honest: Do you have ANY studies or research that you've read that makes you doubt these experts? Or is it more just an appeal to your hyper-partisan hunches, aside from any expert opinion?
We see, and we know the answers.
"It seems to me that YOU are assuming that the black doctor would not automatically be bringing something different than the white doctor... the black perspective."
Then you are wrong. I am looking at two (of potentially many) criteria that might be used for hiring a doctor. What's interesting is your assumption that there is some monolithic, universal, identical "black perspective" that automatically has some undefined yet intrinsic value. What is (like P-BO this black doctor was raised in a world of privileged attending "white" schools and interacting primarily with white peers) would he have the same "black perspective as Dr Ben Carson?
"That's the point. We HAVE to recognize that in our world, flawed as it is, that people from historically oppressed groups ARE going to be bringing some perspective that we, as white straight men are not going to have. The black experience, while perhaps somewhat unquantifiable, can not be ignored or pretend that it doesn't exist."
Again with the straw man argument. Who says that anything should be "ignored"?
"Is that the case for you?"
Is what the case for me?
"That you don't think being black (or gay or transgender or a woman...) does not bring some INNATELY new/different perspective that a white straight male just can't bring?"
I think that every individual, regardless of their skin color, gender, or what elective surgery they've undergone, brings their individual perspective that is special and unique to themselves. This notion of some sort of black (white, LGBTPDQXYZ) collective consciousness or universally shared perspective simply demeans the actual experiences of the individual. I've always favored treating people as individuals, not as members of a group based on secondary or tertiary characteristics.
"How could anyone think otherwise just from an intuitively rational point of view?"
Interesting that you're calling this "settled science", when I keep hearing folks like you insist that science is never "settled". That it's always being scrutinized and falsified. I guess these 7 studies are exempt. I further guess that seven or more studies that provide contradictory conclusions should simply be ignored.
"Whatever happened to good ol' common sense?"
Nothing.
"I would disagree. I think Jesus would disagree."
That you disagree means nothing, that's what you do is disagree. That you try to (sort of) speak for Jesus, is simply hubris.
"THE point of everything - including businesses, according to many conservative Christians I know, is to bring glory to God."
It's always interesting when you try this bullshit tactic. You throw out a statement that you don't believe to be True and act as if it's authoritative. The problem is that glorifying God in one's business and making a profit are not exclusive. How does my business operating at a loss and going out of business, glorify God?
"The point of everything including businesses, according to many/most/all? of my progress and reasonable, moral moderate friends is to do good."
The fact that you and your friends hold an opinion means nothing. How does one do good with one's business if one doesn't bring in income? How is not earning enough to pay your suppliers, employees, and feed your family doing good?
"Do you have a business?"
Do you actually read my comments? If you did you wouldn't have asked this idiotic question.
"At my agency where I work, doing good work - helping folks with disabilities get jobs, find housing, get connected to the community, have healthy options, etc - is THE BOTTOM LINE. Yes, we strive to find ways to pay for the good work we're doing, but financial income is not the bottom line. AT ALL. The bottom line is good lives for historically oppressed people."
Bullshit. Without someone "striving" for money (and striving successfully) the people that you help soon won't be helped, and you'll be unemployed. Without income, nothing else happens. Do you not understand that simple Truth?
I worked for a large, global, nonprofit organization for over a decade. I can say without hesitation that if our development department, and our government relations department, and our grant writers didn't go out and bring in enough for our multi million dollar budget every year, bad things happened. Houses didn't get built, materials didn't get purchased, families didn't get helped, employees got fired, etc. Hell, in 2008-2009 our income dropped precipitously and we fired people left and right, and cut production to incredibly low levels. Hell, how well I did my job could affect donations positively or negatively.
My wife worked for another global non profit as a local area director. Her #1 responsibility was development.
The reality is that I'm pretty experienced in this area.
"Justice. Jobs. Homes. Health. THAT is - and I think should - be the bottom line of any enterprise. Not merely money."
1. I don't care what you think.
2. None of that happens without money.
3. Feeding my family and the families of my employees is pretty important.
4. The level of responsibility that a business owner with people who depend on them, is incredible. It's why we sometimes go without paying ourselves to pay our employees.
"That sounds very much more Ayn Rand than Jesus."
Don't care.
"Indeed, it sounds contrary to Jesus' teachings. "Do not worry about your clothes or building bigger barns. Seek first the Kingdom of God, look out for the least of these, set aside food for the marginalized, welcome the stranger, etc..." (summing up some verses together, there.)"
Out of context, paraphrase much? Given that, I'm not wasting time trying to unravel yoru bullshit.
"THESE should be the bottom line for those who wish to follow Jesus, seems to me. It's what he taught, after all. I'm not saying businesses or agencies should not pay attention to "the bottom line." My point is making financial considerations the bottom line will almost inevitably lead to corrupted, trumpian, perverse outcomes."
Your foolish, naive, pollyannaish, attack on Trump, bullshit, is amusing. I suspect that you're glad that your employer worries about the financial bottom line more than you do.
"It's Wendell Berry says about environmental concerns - we must recognize the economy as a subset of the environment, not the other way around. Or, again, as Jesus said, "Seek first the kingdom of God...""
Impressive, equating Wendell Berry and Jesus.
"IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE VALUE. That's the bottom line. Doing good work. Providing value. Doing work that is helpful, wholesome and profitable to our health, environment and society THAT is the bottom line. The money needed to make that happen is a side consideration, but doing good work, THAT is the bottom line. Is that not part of what you're saying there?"
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that providing value, operating ethically, helping people, and all the rest are essential to my maximizing my financial return. If I don't do those things, then my income dries up, and my business closes. Those things are essential to the financial success of my business.
"And this statement of yours is why you're mistaken/taking a mistaken direction."
No, I'm afraid that you are 100% wrong in this hunch.
"IF I do not do good work, help people connect with employers and have a good life, THEN they will fire me."
Oh, I'm sorry were you under the impression that people only get fired for that one reason? Do you not read or watch the news? Are you unaware that when business or non profits run low on/out of money that they inevitably cut costs by firing people?
"Indeed, we're in the middle of a new endeavor/approach to how we do the work we do. The financial bottom line is NOT the consideration that is most important. Good work, that's the bottom line. Trying to do it the other way (making financial considerations THE BOTTOM LINE most important thing to consider) will only result in perverse and not-good work. See Trumpworld."
Good luck with that.
Just out of curiosity what is the annual budget of your organization?
If your organization raises more money, will they help more people?
How many people in your organization work it any of the following areas; Development, Fundraising, Government Relations, Grant Writing, accounting/budgeting?
Where does the bulk of your organization's income/fundraising come from?
FYI, if your organization is a 501C3, then most of this information is public record. Further, I suspect a quick perusal of the website will provide most of the rest.
It's interesting that you expect non Christian businesses/non profits to be run according to your version of Christian principles, and that you don't seem to grasp that there is a continuum of how ethical businesses are. Your knee jerk "trumpian" bullshit makes me think you are simply arguing from ignorance.
"I'm in the non-profit world. And one thing we and other non-profits do is work for changes in the systems so that we don't have to rely upon charity (which we do some of, as well). In our particular circumstance, we promote advocating for changes in payment systems from Medicaid or Vocational Rehab so that the money that goes to support folks with disabilities is sufficient to meet the need so that non-profits don't have to go begging so much."
Interesting. Are you saying that it would be a good thing if people were able to choose where to spend their government benefits on their own? You do realize that you are still focused on bringing in income, you're just bringing it in from a different source. Because, obviously "charity" is to be avoided.
"It benefits society - all of us - when folks with disabilities are employed and so, society would be smart to help make the INVESTMENTS as a matter of justice so that the support is there so that folks with disabilities CAN be employed... and make their own money and, in some cases, work their way out of depending on gov't dollars and being part of the group of citizens that are paying to help OTHERS in their time of need."
Yes, it benefits society when everyone who is able to work is employed and not living on government largess. I guess, that it makes sense to use government money to get people off of dependence on government money, which will then deplete your organizations funding...
Strangely enough, the notion of abandoning private voluntary as a primary funding base in favor of depending on tax money seems strange. But I guess the notion of relying on government for your sustenance makes sense to you.
"As an investment in justice, not as a charity. That's our model, anyway. And the point would remain doing the good work that makes sense, not merely the financial bottom line."
1. In addition to the earlier questions, can you give me a rough estimate of the reserves/endowments/surplus/etc funds your organization currently holds?
2. In this new model of dependence on tax dollars, does your organization take in enough extra from these medicaid/vocational rehab payments to actually cover all of your operating expenses as well as provide services to your clients?
RE your quotes.
The problem is that you choose to ignore that the means for all of those things to happen is through the income/profit being generated. In your obsessive quest to blame trump for all sorts of things, you choose to ignore that reality.
A business that has no income/profit can not do anything "good". The greater economy is not benefited by business who have no income/profit. Without income/profit let's look at who suffers.
1. The business owner and their family.
2. Their employees and their families.
3. The city/county/state/and federal governments/
4. Their landlords, or the financial institutions that hold their mortgages.
5. Their suppliers.
6. Other local business (restaurants, stores, gas stations, etc).
I could go on, but if you haven't gotten the point by now, it's not worth it.
The reality is that none of the pollyannaish things you think businesses are about can happen if those businesses are not financially successful. It's seriously basic econ.
Craig... "Impressive, equating Wendell Berry and Jesus. "
Impressive, that you don't see the reflection. Less impressive... that you seem to prefer Ayn Rand's blasphemy to either Wendell Berry OR Jesus.
I have not said that we should not pay attention to how to pay for things. You understand that, right?
I'm merely saying that putting the financial bottom line as PRIMARY for any business or enterprise is sure to result in sick, troubled and bad business.
UN-Impressive that you find this hard to believe or grasp.
Craig... "No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that providing value, operating ethically, helping people, and all the rest are essential to my maximizing my financial return. If I don't do those things, then my income dries up, and my business closes. Those things are essential to the financial success of my business. "
But that is PRECISELY what I am saying. The financial bottom line is NOT the primary function of a business. If one is not ethical, providing value, helping people, then all the gold in the world will only weigh you down and make you sick. I don't think you're disagreeing with me, although you're trying mighty hard to do so.
Doing good as a (THE) primary part of any business or enterprise is not "pollyannaish," as you say. It's very sick that you appear to view it that way.
Again, I have a hard time believing that you disagree with what I'm actually saying.
Craig... "The greater economy is not benefited by business who have no income/profit. Without income/profit let's look at who suffers."
I. HAVE. NOT. SAID. WE. OUGHT. NOT. PAY. ATTENTION. TO. FINANCIAL. INCOME.
I have said quite clearly the opposite.
Repeat that back to me and let's see if you understand. Is Dan saying we should pay not attention to finances in a business or enterprise? NO. DAN HAS NOT SAID THAT.
I've said, instead and quite clearly, making the financial bottom line THE PRIMARY concern is sick, unhealthy and bound to bring corruption and an increase in hell.
Is it the case that you're not able to read those last two paragraphs and understand what I'm saying?
How about this: Sum up for me in your own words what you THINK I'm saying.
Craig... " I guess, that it makes sense to use government money to get people off of dependence on government money, which will then deplete your organizations funding..."
The thing that so many worldly and conservative business types fail to understand is that the helping organizations, the social workers, the health workers, those who work with those with disabilities... WE WOULD LOVE TO BE OUT OF A JOB.
If churches and charitable groups wanted to step up and solve these sorts of problems, GOOD ON THEM. I FULLY support them doing that as long as they don't do it in an ugly religious manner (refusing to serve LGBTQ folk, for example, refusing to help single parent families, etc). PUT me out of a job and I'd say God BLESS you.
The thing is, in a capitalist society, there is too little incentive to do this work for the common good to the degree that it is needed. (That may be true for many non-capitalist societies, as well, by the way... I'm just most familiar with what ISN'T working here.)
But in the meantime, it is in the interest of society - all of us - for all of us to pay to see these sorts of services implemented. We'd be foolish to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Craig... "Are you unaware that when business or non profits run low on/out of money that they inevitably cut costs by firing people?"
Yes, I'm very aware that when politicians - primarily conservative so-called "fiscal hawk-types" - fail to adequately fund needed services, that people like me could lose our jobs and the dozens of people I help become more independent and more fully enjoy the human rights so long denied them. That is one very strong reason for you and me and all good people to join together and stop voting for such so-called "fiscal hawk" conservatives and implement better, more humane, more rational policies that fund needed work.
The problem then is not Doing Good Work. The problem is those who are opposed to supporting that who cut off their own noses to spite all our faces. Failing to pay for social services will inevitably cost society more so they sure aren't ACTUAL fiscal conservatives or they'd realize that. Or maybe they're just not very bright fiscal conservatives and aren't able to count the costs well. That's distinctly possible.
Craig...
"1. In addition to the earlier questions, can you give me a rough estimate of the reserves/endowments/surplus/etc funds your organization currently holds?"
Nope. Not my role and I don't know and I probably wouldn't be at liberty to say if I did.
"2. In this new model of dependence on tax dollars, does your organization take in enough extra from these medicaid/vocational rehab payments to actually cover all of your operating expenses as well as provide services to your clients?"
No, Medicaid and OVR don't currently cover the costs to do this work well, and we do it well. That's why we DO some fundraising and grant writing.
Does that answer your question? Why do you ask?
How does that take away from our bottom line being to do good work well?
And consider a group like ours. There ARE ways that we can make more money from the existing gov't models, IF mere money were our most important factor. We provide services to people in groups - that's what the insufficient funding from GOP types supports and encourages. BUT, it's not the best way or even a good way to do the work we do.
We refuse to do bad work that makes us more money. Why? Because MONEY is not the primary bottom line. Doing good work well is.
Seriously. Do you disagree with that? To disagree with the notion that any business or enterprises PRIMARY concern should be doing good work well... it just is so sick and un-Christian. I just can't believe you're so tied to a partisan economic line that you'd deny Christ's teachings like that.
Again, I suspect if you ask most conservative Christians (at least outside the hyper partisan ones) if doing good work well or just dollars should be the bottom line for Christian work, that you'd be on the outside of that group. Can't prove it, but it's certainly what my conservative family and church and circles taught me growing up.
"Don't be deceived. God will not be mocked. A man will reap whatever he sows."
"Do not store up treasures here on earth... for wherever your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Or, if Jesus doesn't grab you, how about these Christian business people...
. “People with purpose have energy,” he said. As the son of a preacher, Schoonveld used to presume that the world was divided into kingdom work and market work. “But the greatest commandment is that we love God and our neighbors,” he said.
Now, his law firm focuses on the
“triple bottom line” of
providing great services to clients,
having employees who want to work for the firm,
and making an impact on the broader environment around them."
Amen, fellas from Trinity Christian College, which sounds like a private conservative Christian college.
Craig, entirely missing the point, lashed out, saying...
"Do you actually read my comments? If you did you wouldn't have asked this idiotic question."
Ironically, Craig, if YOU read my comments, you wouldn't have to get all huffy and miss the point entirely.
What I said...
"The point of everything including businesses, according to many/most/all? of my progress and reasonable, moral moderate friends is to do good.
Do you have a business?
Then do work with that business."
It's clearly a rhetorical question. You can tell because I answered the rhetorical question with the obvious correct and rational answer.
Read what I say, indeed.
I've already addressed this, but it's an important point and I'll deal with it again to be absolutely clear. Craig...
"the notion of abandoning private voluntary as a primary funding base in favor of depending on tax money seems strange."
Who "abandoned private voluntary funding as a primary funding base..."? WHERE precisely did I say that.
OF COURSE, I would be glad for people in our capitalist system to voluntarily provide the needed funds to take care of our common wealth. But, I'm not fool nor am I a tyrant. I'm not going to say to the people I help, "Well, just wait another hundred years and maybe THEN the wealthy churches will step up and help you."
The need is NOW and ongoing. ANY TIME your voluntary sources want to step forward and do the job well, I will cheer them on. But I'm not going to condemn people to a harsh and lonely poverty and early deaths to satisfy your partisan pipe dream that maybe people or churches will step up to meet the needs.
Do you recognize how ineffectual and impotent you make the church (and I guess everyone) appear by suggesting waiting for everyone to do the right thing and save themselves money by investing in the social services?
But, if you can effect that change in the US population and cause folks to somehow step up and meet the needs, go for it, bubba. I fully support you.
Just don't ask us to wait on you.
Craig... "The problem is that you choose to ignore that the means for all of those things to happen is through the income/profit being generated."
In reality, the ONLY MEANS for those things to happen is the people making it happen. Without people doing good work, your money can rot in hell. And it may, anyway.
Money is A means to help do good work, but it is not THE means to do the work.
Craig... "In your obsessive quest to blame trump for all sorts of things, you choose to ignore that reality."
Trump has nothing to do with doing Good Work. He is the antithesis of doing Good Work. That's not "blaming him," it's noting reality.
The reality is that he is a shallow, selfish, greedy, arrogant, dishonest, not-very-bright, incredibly corrupt man, business owner and charlatan. The OPPOSITE of "Good Business," UNLESS you count the financial bottom line as THE primary measure (and even then, I doubt it seriously. His wealth is more bluster and scam than an actually sound business model). Trump is just the perfect example of what "$=BL" thinking leads to. He's not the only one. I suspect the same is true for Harvey Weinstein and a great number of other extremely wealthy men. What was it that one guy said once?
Oh yeah. It's hard for a rich man to be saved. Says the guy who absolutely did not put the financial bottom line first and foremost.
Craig...
"Just out of curiosity what is the annual budget of your organization?"
Don't know. Not my department.
"If your organization raises more money, will they help more people?"
That would depend entirely on how it's raised. We could "help" more people now by congregating groups of folks with disabilities and absolutely make more money to do more of the same... But history and research has shown that this $=BL approach doesn't actually help.
But, if the citizens of the US elect fewer so-called "fiscal hawks" (ie, GOP, typically), then policies could be changed to make more money go to do research-based help that truly does help more people, so YES, in that sense, it would.
It probably depends upon the strings that are attached. Does that make sense?
"How many people in your organization work it any of the following areas; Development, Fundraising, Government Relations, Grant Writing, accounting/budgeting?"
1-3 (people wear many hats) out of some 40 or 50 employees (again, not my department, but it's probably something like that).
"Where does the bulk of your organization's income/fundraising come from?"
Medicaid and OVR, I think. I do know that we've received some large endowments over the years as well, but I don't know the specific numbers. Not my department.
But again, ALL of this SEEMS to be you thinking that I'm saying "money doesn't matter... we'll just pay with honey and kisses!" Of course, I've never said that. ALL I've noted... well, surely by now, you understand what I've actually been saying.
Ah heck: Money is not and should not be THE PRIMARY bottom line for ANY business or endeavor. Doing good work should be.
Do you disagree with what I'm actually saying?
I've begun looking at Dan's "experts" with regard diversity in the workplace and schools. At first, I only saw the two links from August 3, 2021 at 4:33 PM. I looked at the second one about schools, and don't believe I've checked out all the links within that link. I doubt Dan read it all, much less the links within. While it mentions (at least Dan does) that diversity makes a difference, I haven't yet seen anything that affirms it so much as just repeats the claim. However, I'm not done with it, so I'm not making a definitive review of it at present. What I've seen thus far doesn't look promising.
I hadn't gotten to the second link regarding diversity in business before I realized there was a more recent batch of offerings on August 4, 2021 at 11:59 AM. I just got through scanning that one, and took time to view the first video presented therein. It was hilarious in how insipid it was. The rest of the link also contained more links within and I haven't the time to look at present. But again, if the short video is any preview, I'm not expecting anything worth more than what my cat offers in his litter box. Again, I'm withholding judgement until such time that I can take the time I have no doubt Dan didn't take.
For now, it's enough to mention this: I don't need "experts" or "studies" to arrive at my own opinions and conclusions. What I'm seeing thus far in Dan's offerings hasn't suggested a true causative affect on productivity in business or a rational explanation for how kids respond or how they are taught to regard the world around them. That is, was the inclusion of different races or ethnicity what led to positive outcomes, or was it simply the quality of each individual regardless of race or ethnicity. At this point, I'm still leaning toward quality of each individual which tells the tale.
And this is an important point. If I have one hundred people working for me, and they're all the best of the best, they could be any color or ethnicity and I'll experience great success because of it. Personalities matter, the ability to work well with others, to do one's specific tasks well without supervision, imagination and problem solving, etc. None of these things are impacted by race, ethnicity or sex. Unless one is trying to get a foothold in, say, the niche which involves women who are black and from Jamaica, it might be helpful to have a Jamaican who is black to provide insights. But where one's products or services have appeal or provide benefits regardless of such superficial characteristics, how can one's race, ethnicity or sex make any damned difference. Thus far, Dan's links have not provided the answer to that question. They simply make the assertion that it all matters.
Perhaps by the time I get through all that Dan hasn't read himself, I may indeed find the answer to such questions. It'll be interesting to see how they confirmed any connection to skin color and improved profit.
Another thing is just how diverse is it necessary to be? That is, as in this country, the percentage of the population which is black is in the neighborhood of 13%. In my hypothetical, my hundred employees would have to have 13% to satisfy most lefties, but is that necessary in order to be diverse? The dude in the video suggested there can be too few to be properly diverse. But then what is the appropriate percentage and why? We'll see. It'll take time. Unlike Dan, I read not only my own links which I post to prove I'm right, but I read thoroughly all Dan's posts in hopes maybe this time he's right.
Dan asks, "How could anyone think otherwise just from an intuitively rational point of view?" But that's not intuition. That's wishful thinking. Dan wants it to be true. Mature people need to see evidence that it's true. Without it, there's nothing rational about it.
Dan says, "THAT is "trump-style conservatism." It is a hyper-partisan and just ignorant (and joyfully ignorant) and anti-expert approach to life with very little concern for actual facts and truth."
This assumes that every opinion is a political one. Sometimes, it's just looking at something and understanding, "that's moronic", and no amount of "expert" opinion can change that. Sometimes, the biggest morons are intellectuals and "experts". And it isn't necessarily clear that these people before whom Dan bows are bringing actual facts and truths to the table as opposes putting their own partisan, ideological slant on them. In Dan's case, he's just about the conclusions they report...or more likely, simply the headline which precedes it. If it says what he likes to hear, that's good enough to be the unassailable proof of his "experts" and to disagree indicates something negative about you.
Dan can't think for himself. If his "expert" has spoken, that's the end of the story. He's the perfect sheep. The perfect useful idiot.
On the other hand, I don't need experts to tell me what seems so obvious. In business and in teaching (and learning) it is the quality of the individual and the level of that individual's talent that matters...not the individual's race, sex or ethnicity. In my company of 100 people, 100 Ubangi women of exceptional skill, talent and character will make my business wildly profitable. I'm good with that. Really good with that.
Marshal...
"Dan can't think for himself. If his "expert" has spoken, that's the end of the story. He's the perfect sheep. The perfect useful idiot.
On the other hand I don't need experts to tell me what seems so obvious. In business and in teaching (and learning)..."
Wow. Well, Thanks for being a perfect object lesson on the trouble with modern trump-style conservatives. You're saying that I rely on experts and data to verify questions. On the other hand, if something SEEMS right to you, then that gut feeling you have is more important than expert opinion and data.
THAT is the problem with modern conservatism. What a shame.
Post a Comment