Columnist Robert Novak has ties to Anti-Kerry book

We've taken one labor intensive industry (farming) and replaced it with another (manufacturing, though that has become less so as robotics has ramped up). There are still a ton of labor-based jobs out there.

Banking, entertainment, and software are white-collar jobs. You can't reasonably expect workers who previously were labor-oriented to work these jobs. How do we maintain our economy when there are only (or, mostly) white-collar jobs?

Discounting those goods which have regional advantages, why is it cheaper to produce a manufactured item (which could be made anywhere - say, a child's toy car made of steel) in other countries than it is in America?

Look at your language, first of all. "Forcing". I was 'forced' to read the Amerian Constitution in one class. In another, I was 'forced' to read "To Kill A Mockingbird". Would you object if you read that a class in a Saudi university had some passages from the Bible on a course reading list? Would you think that those Saudi students would be worse off understanding Christianity better? What is the purpose of education, Baldimo?

One last point...the 'separation of church/state' argument made by one speaker above is a red herring. Your founders wanted what? They wished to ensure that NO SINGLE faith became the official state religion, either in name or functionally. Having students in Idaho read several pages from a Buddhist text doesn't present much of a threat to this goal your founders had. On the other hand, that the Bush administration has funded Christian faith-based groups almost exclusively does present a clear threat to the founder's goal.

They did NOT identify with personal accumulation of wealth nor did they identify with the sort of selfishness which leads to sweatshops and products that though profitable, kill people, like tobacco and guns and GM autos that executives KNOW will result in X number of families burning to death.

You need to find this statement from the man himself. Your readers here have no way of ascertaining the truth of what you claim. As to 'not holding with America's democratic history'...you are quite wrong. In a democracy, a real one, ideas aren't illegal. And I think you don't understand the diversity of views held by the men who wrote your constitution and bill of rights. You've got some atheists in the pile. Diversity in ideas is a good thing. Enforcing unanimity of view is a bad thing. If, that is, one truly believes in democracy.

Well, I covered these issues above. But again, you note a case without providing specifics. I am assuming you are on the mailing list of a pro-Christian group and are receiving notices such as this one. Do you really think 'conversion' is the motivation in any such case?

You totally ignore the words. Totally. What does "not political discrimination" mean? It means "not discrimination". And your claim that "you can't find discrimination now" is either terribly careless wording or you've never stepped out your front door. Of course prejudice still exists. Much of what you've suggested above shows pretty apparent prejudice against Muslims.

blatham wrote:

Why would it not be a proper role for any nation (or group) to criticize and work to change destructive or inhumane conditions within another state? Would your formula apply on other issues, like civil rights? Or what's going on now in certain African countries? Or in Burma?

From my point of view, this is a non-problem because embargoes simply don't work as tools for liberating countries like Burma, Sudan and Iran. On the contrary, economic sanctions have cemented these regimes by disinfranchising the productive people within those countries whithout impeding the oppressors much. This may be so, I don't have the data to contest it, but I do doubt the absolute flavor or your claim. However, I didn't use the word 'embargo'. Wealthy and powerful nations such as the US have rather more arrows in their bag than just that one. My more important point though was that the inner workings of a state are the proper business of other states/citizens when human/civil rights abuses are in progress. I'm going to presume that you, if in a position of power in your own government's Ministry of Trade, you'd wield whatever levers might be available to force/encourage/cajol some trade partner to reduce/eliminate really destructive worker environments or, say, child labor. No? But I don't want to dodge your question. As a matter of principle, embargoing Cuba is less improper than invading Iraq was, but it would be improper nonetheless. People have to get happy on their own terms, and that includes sacking their own oppressors.
Well, ok, you seem to make your argument here. You've used the moral notion of 'improper' here. Your moral principle seems to be that the less monkeying around within a sovereign state by others is a greater good. Sure. But then we are left with the questions as regards which situations most merit such exterior determinism, and human/civil rights issues ought to be up near the top of the list. If one holds, that is, that there is any moral component to governance and international relations.

blatham wrote:

And to suggest, as seems implicit in your last sentence, that environmental issues conveniently hold to the integrity of national boundary markers is a bit odd.

Not for the particular environmental issues that arize in the countries we're talking about. Producing Aluminium in third world countries produces the same amount of CO2 as producing it in North America. The environmental difference lies in things like air and water pollution, nuclear waste disposal, and other issues that are mostly confined to national boundaries. If you restrict the cases to those which are no problem outside the national boundary (though I think you gloss over how that might be determined with certainty, and over time) then you are still left with the potential problems of localized pollutants harming folks in the area, and the potential problems of, say, worldwide shortages in potable ground water through multiple pollution sources. Again, I'll assume you hold to some notion that pollution issues are increasingly a matter of international concern.[/[/color]quote]

To blatham:

Quote:

Look at your language, first of all. "Forcing". I was 'forced' to read the Amerian Constitution in one class. In another, I was 'forced' to read "To Kill A Mockingbird". Would you object if you read that a class in a Saudi university had some passages from the Bible on a course reading list? Would you think that those Saudi students would be worse off understanding Christianity better? What is the purpose of education, Baldimo?

You don't see the difference between religion and the history of the US? Even reading such things as "to Kill a Mockingbird" is called classic American literature and should be studied ( I think we should update the reading materials). I also see a difference between a public school and a university. Universities can teach what ever they feel because you don't have to be there as apposed to a public school where you don't have a choice. Your argument is a red herring.
Sigh. Would you object if a Saudi university had some passages from the Bible on a course reading list? Please answer.

Quote:

One last point...the 'separation of church/state' argument made by one speaker above is a red herring. Your founders wanted what? They wished to ensure that NO SINGLE faith became the official state religion, either in name or functionally. Having students in Idaho read several pages from a Buddhist text doesn't present much of a threat to this goal your founders had. On the other hand, that the Bush administration has funded Christian faith-based groups almost exclusively does present a clear threat to the founder's goal.

Bush has said faith-based groups could receive money, he didn't say they had to be Christian in nature. Does it state that they must be Christian groups? You could be in charge of a Muslim, Buddhist or even hari Krishna faith group and receive funding.
The single government department which tracks its monies given to faith-based groups shows that ALL its monies given out has gone to Christian groups. This issue, with the relevant links, was discussed here several months past.


If separation of church and state is used in such a way, then how come Christianity is under such attack in the US?
It isn't. But you've bought this story like others have and I doubt very much anyone might show you would change your idea. Why was a Muslim group allowed to have a summer camp on govt land in Iowa? Isn't this the same as having a Christian summer camp on govt land? Why hasn't the ACLU stood up and tried to sue this group and the county to stop this govt endorsement of religion on govt land? Could it be that the ACLU really stands for Anti-Christian League Union?
Like I said...you are on the mailing list of goodness knows how many Evangelical sites and organizations, and you trust them to tell you the truth. Clearly, you aren't reading too much else.

Quote:

They did NOT identify with personal accumulation of wealth nor did they identify with the sort of selfishness which leads to sweatshops and products that though profitable, kill people, like tobacco and guns and GM autos that executives KNOW will result in X number of families burning to death.

Isn't this considered a red herring?
Get yourself clear on this logical term, and see if it meets the definition.

Quote:

You need to find this statement from the man himself. Your readers here have no way of ascertaining the truth of what you claim. As to 'not holding with America's democratic history'...you are quite wrong. In a democracy, a real one, ideas aren't illegal. And I think you don't understand the diversity of views held by the men who wrote your constitution and bill of rights. You've got some atheists in the pile. Diversity in ideas is a good thing. Enforcing unanimity of view is a bad thing. If, that is, one truly believes in democracy.

Article on Noam

I wonder if the opposite view is offered when his books are used in the University setting.
Well, why don't you find out. Go on line, find some university calendars for Political Science courses. It will take you a long while to find any including work by Chomsky, but the search will be beneficial because then you'll get some notion of what really is being taught. And when/if you find a course including a work by Chomsky, see what else is offered by way of contrast. You understand, please, that if you don't go to this sort of research trouble, you can't say you know what you are talking about. You are merely repeating something from Authority, a logical fallacy (like a red herring).

Quote:

Well, I covered these issues above. But again, you note a case without providing specifics. I am assuming you are on the mailing list of a pro-Christian group and are receiving notices such as this one. Do you really think 'conversion' is the motivation in any such case?

Do you really think conversion is the case when Christianity is attempted to be taught in schools? My public speaking teacher won't let anyone do a speech on religion in her class. She states the 1st amendment as her reason but it is against the 1st amendment, because you can't use your free speech in a public speaking class. Ironic isn't it?
First, please provide me with your teacher's email address so that I can verify your claim (ask her first, of course). As regards your rhetorical question in the first sentence...very often, of course that is the goal, or a solidification of belief/value. Other times, it wouldn't be the goal. But you and I both know what the term "evangelize" means. Where conversion would most clearly not be a goal, and where the educational value would therefore be justifiable (education and indoctrination are not the same, and sit in opposition) would be where multiple religious (and non-religious) views are on the study agenda (in my view, a most valuable educational activity).

As to the 'irony' of 1st ammendment, that irony sits in the practical problems of applying the ammendment and not in your teacher's approach. You'll have to try and work out for yourself what "no law respecting an establishment of religion" means. You will have to confront some parts of the long history of US constitutional law and reasoning. Again, if you don't, you at least ought to acknowledge that you aren't very educated in this matter.

Quote:

You totally ignore the words. Totally. What does "not political discrimination" mean? It means "not discrimination". And your claim that "you can't find discrimination now" is either terribly careless wording or you've never stepped out your front door. Of course prejudice still exists. Much of what you've suggested above shows pretty apparent prejudice against Muslims.

Could you prove racism in the 50's under such findings? No you couldn't in many cases, thus the reason for Affirmative Action being brought into law. I guess you can be bias in a political point of view but not when race is in question. Do you trust the judgment of the court because they ruled in favor non-discrimination but instead it was personal against the person?
I'm sorry, this paragraph isn't easily understandable. As to proving racism in the 50s or in this decade for that matter, of course. How many white people do you know who've been dragged behind a car because of the color of their skin? There are a lot of studies that demonstrate institutional racism (bank loans, for example). Again, you gotta change your reading diet.

I don't have a prejudice against Muslims in general, just the ones who want to kill innocent people. I use Islam as an example because it is a good comparison when talking about religion in the US. I look at it this way not all Muslims are worldwide terrorists, but all worldwide terrorists are Muslim.

Sigh. Would you object if a Saudi university had some passages from the Bible on a course reading list? Please answer.

The single government department which tracks its monies given to faith-based groups shows that ALL its monies given out has gone to Christian groups. This issue, with the relevant links, was discussed here several months past.

Like I said...you are on the mailing list of goodness knows how many Evangelical sites and organizations, and you trust them to tell you the truth. Clearly, you aren't reading too much else.

Well, why don't you find out. Go on line, find some university calendars for Political Science courses. It will take you a long while to find any including work by Chomsky, but the search will be beneficial because then you'll get some notion of what really is being taught. And when/if you find a course including a work by Chomsky, see what else is offered by way of contrast. You understand, please, that if you don't go to this sort of research trouble, you can't say you know what you are talking about. You are merely repeating something from Authority, a logical fallacy (like a red herring).

As to the 'irony' of 1st ammendment, that irony sits in the practical problems of applying the ammendment and not in your teacher's approach. You'll have to try and work out for yourself what "no law respecting an establishment of religion" means. You will have to confront some parts of the long history of US constitutional law and reasoning. Again, if you don't, you at least ought to acknowledge that you aren't very educated in this matter.

I'm sorry, this paragraph isn't easily understandable. As to proving racism in the 50s or in this decade for that matter, of course. How many white people do you know who've been dragged behind a car because of the color of their skin? There are a lot of studies that demonstrate institutional racism (bank loans, for example). Again, you gotta change your reading diet.

Was Mcvay a Muslim?

Wasent addressing Baldimo. I dont waste my time on people that arnt open minded. I was addressing McG and his blatent statement that all terriosts were Muslim.

I said I wouldn't care because it was a University and not a public school. Universities can teach whatever they want to.

This may be so, I don't have the data to contest it, but I do doubt the absolute flavor or your claim.

I'm going to presume that you, if in a position of power in your own government's Ministry of Trade, you'd wield whatever levers might be available to force/encourage/cajol some trade partner to reduce/eliminate really destructive worker environments or, say, child labor. No?

Well, ok, you seem to make your argument here. You've used the moral notion of 'improper' here. Your moral principle seems to be that the less monkeying around within a sovereign state by others is a greater good.

If you restrict the cases to those which are no problem outside the national boundary (though I think you gloss over how that might be determined with certainty, and over time) then you are still left with the potential problems of localized pollutants harming folks in the area, and the potential problems of, say, worldwide shortages in potable ground water through multiple pollution sources.

Again, I'll assume you hold to some notion that pollution issues are increasingly a matter of international concern.

I read the damn Krugman article. A moderately entertaining, cute (and patronizing) metaphorical exposition of a point I found to be fairly obvious anyway.

Rivals and bitter enemies in the competitive game of national, tribal, or cultural power and survival have usually been able to find (often fair) ways of trading and dealing in economic matters with each other, even though in the broader perspective of history it is clear that they were locked in deadly struggles with one another. Political games are much more often win/lose than economic ones. Man is more than just an economic animal.

We can and should strive to create the conditions under which they might be extended, but we should recognize that such conditions don't yet exist everywhere, and that history teaches that, even in Europe, they cannot always be relied on - as demonstrated during the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

I believe the Western World is indeed faced with a challenge from a fairly dominant reactionary movement in the Islamic world. In a perverse way, the growing prosperity and political development of Asia (in addition to the West) adds to the jealousy, frustration and sense of injustice that fuels this movement. The contemporary cliche suggests we deal with this issue at its source - as we eventually must.

Some of the principles of Sun Tsu, Machiavelli and others like them still apply if we are to survive to get to the long term.solution.