I will appear nude on SM if he is picked. There is no way any sane adviser would recommend Jindal to McCain. Nothing against Jindal, its just not a good fit. I say Crist has it.

My reading is that he is in fact being considered quite seriously. I think he should take it if asked. If the ticket loses, it's nothing to him, he has his Governorship to come back to, and he gets national exposure for his own run in 2020 (he's still very young for a national politician to run on his own any sooner). The GOP Establishment will be beholden to him for accepting, and he gets the visibility to set himself up for things like Senator, UN Ambassador, etc in the 2011-2019 period, after he decides he's done what he can for Louisiana.

Of course if the ticket wins....Abhi may have to appear nude on SM all the time.

1 · Abhi said

I will appear nude on SM if he is picked.

I'm officially oppossed to a Jindal vp bid.

I will appear nude on SM if he is picked.

Any ladies want to join Abhi? ANNA? Cicatrix?

I will appear nude on SM if he is picked.

Would be better to just dress up in SM gear - latex/leather, ball gag and face mask. Two birds with one stone.

Though I suspect you'll just create a fake picture, using the GIMP.

Crist has these persistent rumors that he's closeted, while Romney polls poorly as a VP pick--that said, Jindal is awfully young, so I predict future greatness for him rather than present VP-dom, but who knows . . . .

3 · Manju said

1 · Abhi said

I will appear nude on SM if he is picked.

I'm officially oppossed to a Jindal vp bid.

Ah! Now we see the violence nudity inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed opposed!

It makes sense. The VP is the 'attack dog'....I'm sure if the Republicans have Jindal on the ticket, any talk of racism/bigotry against Obama would be zero. He should take it if asked. If McCain loses or wins, Jindal would be a viable presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016 or sooner.

chachaji:

The GOP Establishment will be beholden to him for accepting, and he gets the visibility to set himself up for things like Senator, UN Ambassador, etc in the 2011-2019 period, after he decides he's done what he can for Louisiana.

I agree. Why is there so much hate/jealousy for Jindal on Sepiamutiny?

My love for McCain will turn into hatred if he picks that son of a bitch Mitt Romney as his VP. I hope the invitation to Romney is just to thank him for his recent fundraising. Pawlenty, Crist, Jindal are all fine with me but Hillary beats them all on the McCain ticket. They are good friends and surprisingly hold similar views on many issues. Also it's time for McCain to fall like a million bricks on the Limbaugh, Freerepublic.com types. This isn't going to stop the left wing extremists at Daily Kos from unjustifiably hating on McCain but he'll allay the doubts of millions of independents. It's their vote he needs more than that of the bigot base of his party.

8 · TheBrownChamp Why is there so much hate/jealousy for Jindal on Sepiamutiny?

Something to do with crabs and a bucket, though I forget the details!
;-)

I will appear nude on SM if he is picked.

I doubt that McCain will pick Crist, and run the risk of any potentially embarrassing incidents from the past with another not-gay republican (imagine the reruns of the Larry Craig jokes!), especially with the risk of hardcore republicans staying home in November. As for Jindal, he is going to drive the moderates away with the thought of a religious nut just a step away from the presidency.

Mitt Romney is the safest bet, since he seemed to be the conservatives' first pick, and is not too offensive to moderates. McCain personally seems to despise Romney, but he seems to have discarded any shred of self-respect and consistency in his quest for power, so this won't be such a big stretch. If he could hug Falwell and Bush, a little Mitt-love surely can't hurt.

As for Jindal, he is going to drive the moderates away with the thought of a religious nut

LOL--yeah, let's opportunistically take things at face value when it suits us, but be subtle at other times.

Jindal is an extremely pragmatic fellow (i.e., you are deeply missing his underlying pragmatism if you seize on his religious views as other than political). That (plus his intelligence) is a big reason behind his outsized success. His critics would do well to heed the Saudi saying: "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

Jindal is an extremely pragmatic fellow (i.e., you are deeply missing his underlying pragmatism if you seize on his religious views as other than political).

This country is still reeling, and will probably be staggering for at least a decade (optimistically), from the last time we elected a governor of a southern state based on his "pragmatism" and "reasonableness". That one believes in crusades and that god speaks directly to him, this one in exorcisms and hellfire for non-catholics.

Thanks, but no thanks.

This country is still reeling, and will probably be staggering for at least a decade (optimistically), from the last time we elected a governor of a southern state

C'mon, Bill Clinton wasn't that bad! ;-)

Still, perhaps we’re due to have our first Punjabi Vice President

Isn't Jindal a Baniye name like Aggarwal and Jain? Punjabi names are Singh, Kapoor, Khanna, Kaur?.....

-Confused Desi

Mitt Romney is the safest bet, since he seemed to be the conservatives' first pick, and is not too offensive to moderates

Isn't Romney a Mormon nut?! Nooooooo to Romney as VP!

Slightly off-topic but I'm 22 (almost 23), unemployed (useless finance/economics/business degree, d*mn you Bear Stearns! going to ride out the economy by working in international affairs/politics/medicine/law) and an independent.
I'm going to do the Obama Fellowship (http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/fellowsapp?source=SEM-register-recruit) this summer. Its funny though, I will volunteer for Obama but will defintely vote for McCain in November. I'm just too racist. However I will vote for Hillary over McCain in 2012 ;).

My love for McCain will turn into hatred if he picks that son of a bitch Mitt Romney as his VP.

Seriously, f*ck Romney and Huckabee. We don't need a religious nut as VP. Romney and Huckabee are Dick Cheney version 2.0

McCain/Crisp or McCain/Jindal

all 3 VPs are lean

I will volunteer for Obama but will defintely [sic.] vote for McCain in November. I'm just too racist.

Yeah, great. Poster-child for raising the voting age. . . .

Isn't Romney a Mormon nut?

Romney is a Romney nut. He believes in only one thing - himself, and epitomizes the republican party exactly, as it searches for rebranding without actually thinking about the product it is selling. Romney the businessman ran his campaign on that same principle.

We don't need a religious nut as VP. Romney and Huckabee are Dick Cheney version 2.0. McCain/Jindal

If you don't want a veep who peddles religion, stay away from Jindal. Don't know much about Crisp, except that he's a good switch-hitter.

C'mon, Bill Clinton wasn't that bad! ;-)

funny :)

i was talking about dubya, the late bipartisan, isolationist, fiscally-responsible ex-governor from texas, though :)

what about john kerry as mccain's veep?

I have no problem with Jindal as Governor of LA. But President of the US with his right wing religious nutbaggery?

I personally do not think Romney is that extreme in his religious fundametalism. THat guy Crist seems like the best choice for McCain among the three.

i hope crist does for republican prospects in nov 2008 what another great son of florida, mark foley, cemented in nov 2006.

well you dont have to be an idiot to see this, but i think ur missing the point here, amardeep. Mccain, is going after crist and jindal, for fundraising purposes. I will bet u my two goats and my daughter, that neither of them is going to get the nomination. In fact, it is more like that we see romney receive the call, since mccain would like the michigan vote.

peace

Piyush is Punjoo? Hell, I thought he was Redneck. With Obama as the Dem candidate how can old white McCain (yes, I voted for him in the '99 primary) not pick our brown brother. WTH is our country coming to? McCain is going to kick it while in office (sadly, I feel like he will win) and Piyush will be our POTUS.

17 · rob said

I will volunteer for Obama but will defintely [sic.] vote for McCain in November. I'm just too racist.

Yeah, great. Poster-child for raising the voting age. . . .

unfortunately, i don't think that is the answer, as this article vividly and sadly proves. and this is by people who should know better, as they themselves probably lost family members or know people who lost relatives in one of the most notorious genocides in history, and further lived through a period in american history where they themselves experienced discrimination, and likely have contemporaries who changed their names, or daughters who went so far as to undergo surgery so as to avoid being on the receiving end of anti-semitism. and still, they shamelessly declare:

“They’ll pick on the minister thing, they’ll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color,” she said, quietly fingering a coffee cup.

Some of the resistance to Mr. Obama’s candidacy seems just as rooted in anxiety about race as in anxiety about Israel. At brunch in Boynton Beach, Bob Welstein, who said he was in his 80s, said so bluntly. “Am I semi-racist? Yes,” he said.

Jack Stern, 85, sitting alone at an outdoor café in Aventura on Sunday, said he was no racist. When he was liberated from a concentration camp in 1945, black American soldiers were kinder than white ones, handing out food to the emaciated Jews, he said.

Years later, after he opened a bakery in Brooklyn, “I got disgusted, because they killed Jews,” he said, citing neighborhood crimes committed by African-Americans. “I shouldn’t say it, but it is what it is,” said Mr. Stern, who vowed not to vote for Mr. Obama.

disgusting.

if anything, it is the younger crowd that seems more likely to break out of this cycle. as i hope it will be with our own south asian community.

The reason Jindal is being considered is because he has nothing to lose. He can take 6 months off and do the VP thing. Hes the darling of Rush Limbaugh/ Michelle Malkin crowd, "Regan Conservatives," and his accolades are going to be talked about on talk/hate radio. If he has any skeletons in the closet they will not be talked/exposed on talk radio like the Wright issue was. The ethnicity factor will allow the GOP present itself in parallel to the Dems ticket. His accomplishments will dwarf Obama's. His immigrant story will again offer a parallel to Obama's. His executive experience and ethics reform accomplishment will overshadow Obama's experience/message. His religion will not be a factor since everyone in the press will talk about his conversion and his commitment to intelligent design. He solidifies the talk/hate radio party base. Mccain can then go out and get the independents/ people not comfortable with Obama.

This country is still reeling, and will probably be staggering for at least a decade (optimistically), from the last time we elected a governor of a southern state

C'mon, Bill Clinton wasn't that bad! ;-)

I suggest you start listening to Obama supporters. They have left me with the distinct impression that America under Bill Clinton's had degenerated into Sodom with a sub saharan economy .... and Bill Clinton is a closet KKK grand poopah who drowns cute kittens for fun.

What we need is CHANGE (and so here was my $.02)

I predict it's going to be Pawlenty. Romney won't woe social conservatives, Jindal is too young, and there are rumors out there that Crist is gay. Safest bet: Pawlenty out of Minnesota.

Romney was appealing to a few conservatives considering the few options they had - McCain, Guiliani. However, his flip flopping on pro life issues, his ideas on fixing health care (MA - the WSJ just came out with a sharp article on how his plan is failing in MA) and the fact that he is a mormon were a problem with conservatives. If McCain wants someone to bolster his conservative credentials, he can always find someone more appealing to them than Romney (Sonny Purdue??) and thus I am not convinced that Romney brings enough to the table for McCain to choose him. OTOH, much as I dislike Jindal, he has started seeming promising from McCains point of view - appealing to the religions nutcases, non white and thus 'diverse' (the republican machine has already started branding the people who McCain has invited as 'very diverse') and knowing what we know of Jindal, he'll make sure he has the correct chemistry with McCain (which to McCain will be important). Plus something which is not being mentioned is the fact that Jindal being young may be a good thing, I think McCain will be able to use Jindals youth to say that the ticket is more balanced in youth and experience than an Obama-whoever ticket. Also, Jindals apparent problem of his ethnicity for a white base party wont be so since the voters other option is again a non white person.

And yes, there are plenty of baniya Punjabis. There are Hindu punjabis, there are Muslim punjabis and there are Sikh punjabis. A punjabi is a person from Punjab who shares a common language and to an extent culture. Traditionally it had nothing to do with caste, religion, etc.

The Republican attack machine (Limbaugh, Hannity, & other talk show hosts) are raving about Jindal. If they say to vote for Jindal, these guys will vote for him in the years to come.

Still, perhaps we’re due to have our first Punjabi Vice President.

Are people gonna hop on one foot, then alternate which foot they hop on in the oval office? but that would be flip flopping.

Republicans can really only win when they have strong imagery associated with their candidate.

Ron Reagan - cowboy hat and a smile. (and Jelly beans?)
Arnold - this is pretty damn obvious.
W - Cowboy hat and two holstered pistols and chaps.

no straight talk in the log cabin

actually, it is well-known that log cabins are safe spaces for queer talk.

14 · rob said

C'mon, Bill Clinton wasn't that bad! ;-)

rob, that was very sharp :) really, i can't pick between manju and you for my favorite republican. it'll have to be both (especially because edging out manju from the running might exacerbate his weight/self-esteem issues).

I have no problem with Jindal as Governor of LA. But President of the US with his right wing religious nutbaggery?

Agree, although I always suspected Jindal's public piety to be a necessary price to pay if you want to run in modern American politics.

Jindal isn't a religious nut as people perceive him to be. Think about it. How would he get the vote since he's a minority. Be the most ultra conservative guy out there. I mean he went to Brown and Oxford. Do people really think he believes in Intelligent Design? Hell no.

My guess is that one of the reasons Jindal would be considered is because it would allow white voters who are slightly conflicted about voting on solely racial grounds a way out. They could rationalize to themselves; "well, I'm no racist, I may not have voted for the black fella but I did vote for Mcain with that brown guy". I, admittedly, am no fan of Jindal even if he is a Punjabi brother. I have to agree with Abhi, it doesn't make sense for Mccain, who, in my opinion, shouldn't be pandering to the right but moving toward the center with a Repub. VP who appeals to independents.

Age and Electoral College Arithmetic

McCain is quoted as saying in the NYT article linked in above, that age will be a strong factor in his running mate selection - so, other things being equal, the younger the better - and Jindal is the youngest, so he should be ahead of the other two (Crist and Romney) on this factor alone.

Louisiana has 9 Electoral College seats, Mass. has 12, and Florida has 27.

On this Crist should be ahead, provided Florida would otherwise go Democrat without him on the ticket. But Florida has gone Republican every year since 1984 - except in 1996. And in Florida, McCain's age might be an advantage, so that even Democratic-leaning older voters might vote for him. And with Crist being not-gay, that could hurt him. McCain might be counting on the fact that just by letting on that he is considering Crist, without actually doing so seriously - he can help himself with that constituency a little bit.

Massachusetts, on the other hand, has gone Democratic every year since 1984 - except 1984 itself, when Reagan carried it. So it's hard to see Romney helping McCain carry Massachusetts. He's also a Mormon, which would impact nationally on the ticket, so that, and the fact that he can't be counted on to bring in his home state, especially in 2008 - should go against him.

Louisiana has been the most erratic of the three states - Republican in '84, '88, '00 and '04 - but Democratic in '92 and '96. Thus it has shown a tendency to go Democratic during big surges. This should count in Jindal's favor; I can see how he could bring in Louisiana for the Republicans in 2008, having just won last year, even if there is a Democratic surge in the country. That, his youth, his policy wonkishness, his Rhodes scholarship, his immigrant story, his skin color, are all in his favor. I don't see any negatives. If there are constituencies where his skin color is a negative, Old Grandad Older Than Dirt The White Tornado will pull 'em in.

If McCain's analysts see it my way, Jindal is the frontrunner for Veep on the GOP ticket right now.

I wonder if Republicans want Jindal badly because this could attract Indians & other Asians (where there are many affluent people..= more donation). But then again, only 4 million Asians, so that really isn't a lot.

I am glad Condi is not on the short list. Better to get rid of the nasty smell coming from the present white house.

I think Charlie Crist is the best choice. Florida might be in play if Hillary is chosen as the VP. Interesting article in today's times about the distrust of Obama with jewsih voters but Hillary can change that. With Crist I think Florida will remain Republican.

How would you feel if I were to tell you that Jindal might be the presumptive nominee's illegitimate black (wheatish) baby?

In all due respect, I don't think charecterizing Jindal as Punjabi is accurate, he is Christian and we should respect that rather then applying tags that suit our purpose.

In all due respect, I don't think charecterizing Jindal as Punjabi is accurate, he is Christian and we should respect that rather then applying tags that suit our purpose.

Punjabi is an ethno-linguistic identifier, Christian is a religious one. You can be both Christian and Punjabi.

I mean he went to Brown and Oxford. Do people really think he believes in Intelligent Design? Hell no.

so are you saying he's pandering?

Piyush is Punjoo? Hell, I thought he was Redneck.

Bobby Jindal is punjabi, as much as I am.

louiecypher,

True, even by that count I don't think he identifies as a Punjabi so it is correct to lable him as such.

35 · portmanteau said

rob, that was very sharp :) really, i can't pick between manju and you for my favorite republican. it'll have to be both (especially because edging out manju from the running might exacerbate his weight/self-esteem issues).

port: your comment made me puke

48 · Manju said

port: your comment made me puke

there's nothing a good binge won't cure. maybe there's donuts in the lunchroom?

Jindal has next to zero national name recognition and would be a poor choice. Not that I want McCain to make a GOOD choice (whatever that would be).

49 · portmanteau said

there's nothing a good binge won't cure. maybe there's donuts in the lunchroom?

you're not going to be able to impose your fat liberation theology on me port. i listen to rush limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh rocks.

50 · kusala said

Jindal has next to zero national name recognition

But more national name recognition, especially since he's been on late night shows, and because of Katrina - than Dan Quayle, who didn't have it either, and got on the ticket in '88. Also at least he lives in this century and can spell 'potato'! :)

If Jindal got on the ticket, this would become the most interesting Presidential race in history. The Indian-American vote would be up for grabs again, and this would push the Democratic platform to be even more responsive to their concerns, and to POC concerns more generally.

I say it would be a damn good thing, and I don't agree that he brings all the creationist etc baggage he carried in Louisiana when he's on a national ticket.

Chachaji,

I don't understand sure why the Indian American vote will be up for grabs when it has been discussed countless times on SM that he doesn’t identify himself as such. Is there special affinity because he looks Indian American and people will forget about what he stands for?

50 · kusala said

you're not going to be able to impose your fat liberation theology on me port. i listen to rush limbaugh.

in that case, feel free to hate and stifle yourself, friend. i'm sorry that bathroom stalls are your only sanctuary from the world these days. they were larry craig's temporary salvation too. until they caught up with him.

55 · portmanteau said

they were larry craig's temporary salvation too. until they caught up with him.

but that's what happens when you have a wide stance

I predict it's going to be Pawlenty.

Oh, good. He can finally be taken off our hands here.

Chachaji

But Florida has gone Republican every year since 1984 - except in 1996.

Since elections in Florida have been so close (with democratic winning the vote in 2 out of the last three presidential elections ) , it makes more sense for McCain to have Crist on the ticket

Florida went to Bush in 2000. NYT second guessing doesn't count, it didn't change results on the ground. I was aware of NYT and other second-guessing when I wrote that.

And Florida went to Bush by 400,000 votes in 2004. But you're right, it could be close this time.

Jews don't like Obama. Florida=semi-large Jewish state. Add in Crist, and McCain is our Presidente.

An Indian, a gay, and a Mormon. Wow. McCain is really swinging for the fences here.

43 · umber desi said

In all due respect, I don't think charecterizing Jindal as Punjabi is accurate, he is Christian and we should respect that rather then applying tags that suit our purpose.

This is pretty strange. I have seen a tendency on Desi-focused blogs and message boards to claim that Punjabi is a religion. This really, really needs to be nipped in bud so people do not come across as foolish and ignorant.

Word on the street is that this VP invite to Arizona is nothing but a ploy to distract attention from the fact that old man McCain is releasing his med records at the same time.

This is pretty strange. I have seen a tendency on Desi-focused blogs and message boards to claim that Punjabi is a religion. This really, really needs to be nipped in bud so people do not come across as foolish and ignorant.

That is truly bizarre. Punjabi is a ethno-regional-cultural identity... Sometimes people conflate elements of their Punjabi identity with their religion, and vice-versa, but it's absolutely not a faith tradition.

yep, if i recall correctly, even hillary clinton was described as d-punjab about a year ago.

Agree, although I always suspected Jindal's public piety to be a necessary price to pay if you want to run in modern American politics.

he pushed the exorcism and hellfire nonsense at least a decade ago, when he was in oxford. either, every act of his since he was 15 or whatever has been targeted towards becoming a successful politician, in which case i have absolutely no idea what he believes in, or he really believes in this stuff. in either case, i certainly wouldn't want him in the white house or in that orbit.

a lot of people voted bush based on what was perceived as a bipartisan record in texas, and he repudiated both that and his "not a global policeman" stance in no time once he got to office. there is no reason to make that kind of mistake again.

jindal made his choice of how he wanted to get to power, and i see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jews don't like Obama. Florida=semi-large Jewish state. Add in Crist, and McCain is our Presidente

Rahul, I could be wrong, but I can't see bluehaired Floridian Jewish retirees voting for McCain in appreciable numbers, with or without Crist. However, it's anyone's guess how Florida will swing in November. I'd like to see some numbers.

Camille/Delurker,

I agree it is an inaccurate comparison but the larger point about if Indian Americans may vote for him doesn't sound right.

66 · kusala said

in Crist, and McCain is our Presidente
Rahul, I could be wrong, but I can't see bluehaired Floridian Jewish retirees voting for McCain in appreciable numbers

Ever since Obama is the new Mr. Appeasement (his talks on Iran), Jews are skeptic of Obama. Here's a link.

http://newsmax.com/insidecover/florida_jews_obama/2008/05/22/98181.html

given Jindal`s voting record, do you guys really want a nutcase for a VP....or are all desis in the USA completely bonkers?

or are all desis in the USA completely bonkers?

How did you vote in the last general/state elections in India?

I mean he went to Brown and Oxford. Do people really think he believes in Intelligent Design? Hell no.

he wrote atheism's gods in 1995, with chesnuts like "Even if we grant Dawkin's assumption that human beings are the product of unassisted evolution, which is quite a generous gesture since there is much controversy over the fossil evidence for evolution...." i doubt he rejects evolution (brown had a very rigorous and deep set of classes for biology majors during his period there from what i have heard from those who went through it contemporaneously), but he was working on his creationist talking points early on.

and yeah, bobby is great as a louisiana governor. but even george w. bush doesn't oppose abortion to the point of no exceptions. i'm a yankee, so of course i stand with the yankees....

Jews don't like Obama

really? so this is a fabrication: Poll: Most Jewish voters want Obama to win, huh?
A new Gallup survey found that 61% of Jewish voters prefer Obama to McCain, who got 32% of the Jewish support.

That number is far greater than the rate found for the general population, who only preferred Obama to McCain 45-43, according to the poll. Obama also still trails Clinton in Jewish support, according to the survey, with Clinton winning against Obama in the Jewish community 50%-43%.

...

"In 2004, John Kerry received 75% of the Jewish vote and George W. Bush received 25%. The recent polling numbers demonstrate Obama's weakness among Jewish voters. This data comes on the heels of the exit poll data from the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. Hillary Clinton beat Obama among Jewish voters 62%-38%," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks.

it seems likely that obama will lose some on the margins, but the poll probably is obama's low point with jewish voters since many of them are hillary supporters who are currently claiming they won't vote for him in the fall. historically that doesn't usually hold. remember to check up on the media, they're innumerate 'tards.

Anurag,

there are days when I do wonder myself.

Jindal for veep is about as ridiculous a notion as I've seen yet. Though Abhi, I've seen stranger things--and so have you. I really really hope you don't wind up naked on SM.

For your sake...and ours.

given Jindal`s voting record, do you guys really want a nutcase for a VP....or are all desis in the USA completely bonkers?

bobby jindal threads often devolve into a crap load of anti-christian and anti-conservative bashing. so you are talking to the wrong people; the brown people who are supporting jindal in a knee-jerk fashion for VP or higher office aren't the ones that read SM....

the brown people who are supporting jindal in a knee-jerk fashion for VP or higher office aren't the ones that read SM....

Ah, that's what's wrong with my knee--I can cancel my orthopedics appointment--I was getting worried that I had "restless leg syndrome."
;-)

Anurag, what's so crazy about his voting record? Don't tell me everyone in the Desh these days is some sort of free-love Socialist?!

75 · rob said

I was getting worried that I had "restless leg syndrome."

hmmm, better see your urologist...could be "restless 3rd leg syndrome." (sorry for the slam comrade rob, but since your vying for Port's affection, all is fair in...)

(sorry for the slam comrade rob, but since your vying for Port's affection, all is fair in...)

Port is far too generous--I put you up there in Rahul's league, Manju!

77 · rob said

Port is far too generous--I put you up there in Rahul's league, Manju!

oh, very clever cassanova rob...a backhanded compliment separating you from the mob.

I just hope that Pat Buchanan is not on the ballot in Florida this year. Wasn't there one district in 2000 that Buchanan get alarge % of the jewish vote, that most people thought would go to Gore. So for Obama sake he better hope that doesn't lose some of the jewish vote like Gore did in 2000 to Buchanan.

I still never understood why, in that one county the Jews voted for Buchanan.

suki: gore was right on top of Buchanan in the infamous butterfly position. they were into gore and wanted to poke him but ended up penetrated buchanan instead, as elderly palm beach county citiznes are known for their accedental rear-end collisions. But why chad was found hanging remains unkown.

...everyone got bush at the end of the day

dick too

...even those who ralphed

Yeah, I know about them voting for Buchanan by mistake.

But there was apart of me hoping that was some Jews for Buchanan group based in South Florida. It would be weird, but also kinda of cool. Kind of like that group in Louisana in early 90's which was Blacks for David Duke.[ I recall reading somewhere that Duke get 4 black votes].

I just don't get the whole paronia over ID (Intelligent Design) issue.
If a strong science curriculum in public high schools was a keystone of American greatness, then we have a lot more to worry about than creationism. In fact, I do agree that scientific advance is a key component of America's success, I just don't think American public high schools have much to do with it, because our public high schools are, on average, crap. Rather, our private higher educational institutions are the envy of the world, and the best and brightest of the world end up coming here as a result, pursuing their advanced degrees and enriching us by their discoveries.

I went to a decently ranked public high school in an upper-middle-class neighbourhood in California. Yes, "decently ranked" in a backwards educational cesspit like California doesn't mean much, but honestly, it was a pretty good school, at least by California's banana republic standards. It sent graduates out to the Ivy league, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. regularly. I took AP Biology there. And we learned nothing in that class. Anything we learned, we learned from cramming on our own for the exams.

This is the paradigm I'm looking at here. School districts can say they want to "teach" creationism, but there's so little learning going on in public schools that what they put in the curriculum is an irrelevancy. This is the same problem we run into with debates on abstinence vs. condom use -- it doesn't matter what you say because the students aren't listening to you in the first place. It's a heated debate conducted on matters of minor importance in an atmosphere of total fantasy.

Now, if creationism gets put into the doctoral program at MIT, then yes -- we might have a problem. Or even if creationism gets into the elite magnet schools, like Thomas Jefferson, then yes, I could see there being a problem. But the curricula we are talking about are being shaped by locals. And the issue is whether local districts get to exercise this kind of control in their curricula, for better or worse. This is, how you say, an extremely minor issue. We're talking about a handful of districts across the US, against the backdrop of an irreparably broken public educational system that can't teach basic maths and reading comprehension let alone evolution.

We have much bigger public education problems, problems we need to solve before a handful of school districts teaching that evolution is "only a theory" and that their lord god and master created the world in 6 days should even be registering as a concern.

Piyush is Punjoo? Hell, I thought he was Redneck.

I heard he's still secretly Hindu. Read it on the internet.

Early this morning, I heard on this radio show that comedian Mark Curry was thinking about running for President...but ONLY if he can get Condeleeza Rice as his running mate, so that he can have political banners reading CURRY & RICE. Go figure, lol.

87 · Huey said

Early this morning, I heard on this radio show that comedian Mark Curry was thinking about running for President...but ONLY if he can get Condeleeza Rice as his running mate, so that he can have political banners reading CURRY & RICE. Go figure, lol.

Huey: Do you write your own material? If so, I see a career with MADtv in your future.

Speaking of Mark Curry, anyone else here besides me struggling to move on after the demise of Hangin' with Mr. Cooper? No? Anyone? Didn't think so.

76 · Manju said

sorry for the slam comrade rob, but since your vying for Port's affection, all is fair in...

the republican politics of exclusion, a very narrow range;
that is why the states united heed the clarion call of change.
creating false dichotomies, why! that's rove's scheming art
there's a place for both of you, in my big bleeding heart.

Rush Limbaugh rocks.

Rush Limbaugh is on rocks.

I think people who were on painkillers (like Oxycotin) became addicted to this; this was a drug that wasn't supposed to be on the market. That's what I remember reading back then.

Oh so, Limbaugh is just an innocent victim, who was hooked on a drug by the evil doctors and the general stress of the liberal media making his life oh-so unbearable, of course all the poor black people in Harlem that are hooked on crack, are just pathologically predisposted to act that way, has nothing to do with the white gangsters (in bed with the cops and the gov at the time) that trafficked narcotics SPECIFICALLY in those areas to target poor neighborhoods, and give them a way to escape the suffering they'd endured their entire lives?

92 · HMF said

Oh so, Limbaugh is just an innocent victim, who was hooked on a drug by the evil doctors and the general stress of the liberal media making his life oh-so unbearable, of course all the poor black people in Harlem that are hooked on crack, are just pathologically predisposted to act that way, has nothing to do with the white gangsters (in bed with the cops and the gov at the time) that trafficked narcotics SPECIFICALLY in those areas to target poor neighborhoods, and give them a way to escape the suffering they'd endured their entire lives?

I think you're more racist than Limbaugh.

I think you're more racist than Limbaugh.

By pointing out how blacks were treated differently, first explicitly without any veiling, then through systematic institutionalized discrimination, and pointing out how a general perception of blame is applied to them while a perception of understanding and healing is applied to people like Rush?

If I'm racist, so was MLK and the entire civil rights movement.

If I'm racist, so was MLK and the entire civil rights movement.

Please HMF don't compare youself to MLK.

It would be weird, but also kinda of cool. Kind of like that group in Louisana in early 90's which was Blacks for David Duke.[ I recall reading somewhere that Duke get 4 black votes].

umber desi -- I agree with you, I think it would be bizarre (and unlikely) that desis would vote overwhelmingly for McCain if Jindal were on his ticket. That said, perhaps it would be a generational or migrational difference (similar to older white women preferring to vote Hillary for various reasons). Maybe that's a loaded, and overly cursory, comment on my part, though.

I think the Creationism issue is valid, including in public schools. That said, we've debated about Bobby Jindal's creationism and religious views a LOT already, and the convo is relatively pointless. Are we really going to rehash everything that's already been said?

45 · HMF said

I mean he went to Brown and Oxford. Do people really think he believes in Intelligent Design? Hell no.

so are you saying he's pandering?

Yep.

HMF,

are you a guy or a lady?

Please HMF don't compare youself to MLK.

Show me where in this regard, our views are different? I'm pointing out a difference in the way the american government legally, then american society in general has treated black americans in this country. I'll quote you a speech (a line not often quoted)

"In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir... It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds.""

link

Quote frankly, creationism has no place in the sciences. not even indirectly(which is ID). That would be like if Scientology got more adherants, science textbooks would have to start dealing with thetans or whatever nonsense they spout.
Watch Flock of Dodos a pretty evenhanded documentary which does a great job explaining why ID and creationism is getting so much traction in some school districts. The amount of propaganda involved with ID is so clever that I would not want that to get any kind of foothold in schools because it will surely lead to other crap being brought in.

But if they want to discuss it in philosphy, history, or whatever, fine.

Jindal cant do much harm at the state level with his religious fundamentalism. At the state level, his positives will outweigh his negatives. At the federal level, I wont trust him.

100 · Pravin said

Quote frankly, creationism has no place in the sciences. not even indirectly(which is ID).

I agree. even if there is no practical effect, as "ID? big deal" maintains, our regime is based on principle, consequences be damned. teaching creationism as science in public schools violates the establishment clause. you could, however, teach it as part of a humanities curriculum in public schools if its given equal status to secular pseudo-scientific philosophies such as freudianism or marxism for example, and make a legit end-run around the 1st amendment.

Way to go, HMF! As for Jindal, it is just too bad -- downright embarrassing --that the first politician of desi descent to attract national attention just happens to be a war-mongering, gay-bashing, bible-thumping neanderthal endorsed by crazies of the Limbaugh ilk.

1. My politics are completely different than Jindal's but hey, since they include identity politics, I think desi americans would be atypically unstrategic negotiators in America's racial heirarchies not to reward republicans for considering Jindal. Each time Jindal is in the news as having serious Veep consideration, there should be floods of desi political donation money to the Republican National Committee. That's something tangible that can be pointed to. Are desi americans going to be the brown jews, or the brown __(insert least politically effective social group here)__.

2. I agree with chachaji That Jindal's next rational move after governor is burnishing foreign policy credentials. The best way he could do that is as Secretary of State, but the second best and more likely root is as a Senator. But I think Governors could develop much stronger foreign policy credentials than they generally do. For example, Louisianna probably has state-based national guard troops in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Jindal would do well to visit them twice per year. In addition, he'd do well to go on trade-promoting trips to important trading partners with America and Louisiana (China, Russia, Israel) as long as such travel didn't exceed 6 weeks out of the year, and couldn't be spun as time spent in 5 star hotels and restaurants with an excessive enterouge on the taxpayer's dime. If I could advise him, I'd say go for 2 terms as governor with as agressive foreign policy involvement as is prudent, rather than going the cabinet position/senate route. Oh yeah, and he could write a book every couple years on how to promote national security with examples from what he's done in Louisiana.

3. I agree with almost everyone that we need desi candidates this strong on the Democrat side (and also more Desi candidates this strong on the Republican side). I think Kal Penn has a potential as a progressive. He could be looking at political slots in California, Washington State, and Maryland. Also, if Obama wins the presidency, the most qualified Desi progressives should look at trying to step into the Obama senate seat in Illinois, since they could conflate with him pretty naturally.

103 · Dave said

Also, if Obama wins the presidency, the most qualified Desi progressives should look at trying to step into the Obama senate seat in Illinois, since they could conflate with him pretty naturally.

I wish the Democrats would leave my state. They're raising the taxes, and shafting middle class peeps here (we have the highest gas prices of all the big cities..Chi town).

Gas prices are pretty much the last thing you should whine about - d'you have any idea what your counterparts across the Atlantic have to pay?

105 · Meena said

Gas prices are pretty much the last thing you should whine about - d'you have any idea what your counterparts across the Atlantic have to pay?

True. I should be more appreciative. All I'm saying is that Democratic agendas screw the people the people they intend to help. Raising the corporate tax (like Obama) wants to do, will send jobs overseas.

I really shouldn't meddle in American political issues, but if the Democrats offered something in exchange for the higher taxes, say government protection plans, wouldn't there be less animosity towards the high taxes?

Protectionism isn't good for most people.

I really shouldn't meddle in American political issues, but if the Democrats offered something in exchange for the higher taxes, say government protection plans, wouldn't there be less animosity towards the high taxes?

So we should become more socialist, like many European nations?

Amitabh - Well I'd hardly call it socialist. That's a bit extreme isn't it? I'm not telling you what to do or not - just offering an alternative viewpoint. I don't know if it would work in the United States - the size and diversity of the population IS a problem. All I'm saying is, wouldn't people be happier if there wasn't some sort of safetly net for the poorest of the poor? Weighted taxes according to income levels? If the government couldn't at least provide some basics instead of leaving people to fend for themselves? Who really believes in the American Dream anyway nowadays?

Your use of the term 'socialist' is interesting, though. In my country, there is a Socialist Party, and they are considered too far out most of the time. They want, for instance, an all-out ban on nuclear power, if my memory serves me, as well as strict control on genetic manipulation, and even higher taxes. Only in recent years they have gained a lot of popularity in the working class, because of the state of political affairs, and a lot of promises were made by the status-quo parties which weren't being kept. Now we have a Christian coalition, which is also quite socialist in a lot of ways, but also very parochial in my view. So you see why the use of 'socialist' to denote European governments irks me - you have to view them in their own context, not that of the United States.

Rahul S:

Protectionism isn't good for most people.

111 · Meena said

Rahul S:

Protectionism isn't good for most people.

1. Well, what I referred to isn't really protectionism is it? And 2. Why wouldn't it be good for most people?

I assume that you live in Europe. But, (1) let's look at the farm subsidies American farmers have been getting. These subsidies protect the American farmers over foreign competition. We have an increase in food prices (attributed to many things). Foreign competition would bring that price of food down (bc it's cheaper to produce). People who are middle class or poor are hurt, while the few farmers benefit (yes the lack of protectionism would screw over these farmers). In addition, foriengers have a little more difficulty finding jobs in the U.S. I read a study from the Heritage Foundation that stated that if foreigners would be able to get jobs, more jobs would be created for Americans (since these foreigners would form their own companies). New foreigners can't form their own businesses (only after a certain amount of years). There's more, but this is what I can think of right now.

I wish the Democrats would leave my state. They're raising the taxes, and shafting middle class peeps here (we have the highest gas prices of all the big cities..Chi town).

Sorry to hear about the high gas prices in your great city. But I have feeling that 5 months and 1 week from now that nobody in your city will be caring how much gas is[for the short term], when they are too busy with the mother of all parties after the Cubs win the world series!!!!!!!

113 · Suki Dillon said

I wish the Democrats would leave my state. They're raising the taxes, and shafting middle class peeps here (we have the highest gas prices of all the big cities..Chi town).

Sorry to hear about the high gas prices in your great city. But I have feeling that 5 months and 1 week from now that nobody in your city will be caring how much gas is[for the short term], when they are too busy with the mother of all parties after the Cubs win the world series!!!!!!!

Thanks for reminding me. Good point. Who will care about those gas hikes. I'm anticipating that the city will burn down just like the 1800's. The next great Chicago fire.

We have much bigger public education problems, problems we need to solve before a handful of school districts teaching that evolution is "only a theory" and that their lord god and master created the world in 6 days should even be registering as a concern.

Actually, you sound very naive. These things are more important than you realize because it would be these very ignorant uneducated masses, who end up putting people in the govt (or maybe even assue office :P) a few years down the line, unfortunately, given the way democracy works.

107 · Meena said

I really shouldn't meddle in American political issues, but if the Democrats offered something in exchange for the higher taxes, say government protection plans, wouldn't there be less animosity towards the high taxes?

meena, i think the problem is that the constituency which would benefit from govt protection plans is different from the constituency that would bear the burden of the higher taxes. not coincidentally, the latter constituency is more politically powerful and also bankrolls political campaigns come election time.
at lot of wealthy americans (while being strong contractualists) do not see how they take advantage of the societal infrastructure and complain about taxation. the judicial system, strong law enforcement, basic political freedoms, primary education -- all of these make protection of property easier and keep it easy to do business (compare with other bureaucratic regimes where setting up businesses is much harder). the richest in society receive the most benefit from a property- and business-friendly regime and still complain about taxes.
often times in public life, a zero-sum rule is operational -- if i have a better childhood and more genetic talent (perseverance probably has some genetic component), i get a great job. but that also means one less great job for the public. so -- i benefit purely from my luck. in that case, i should realize that i or my offspring could be born unlucky and lose out in the sociobiological lottery, and want some insurance from that bad luck (the intuition that rawls has in the original position or behind the veil of ignorance). while i'm not advocating that every social policy move should increase the benefit of the worst-off, i do think rawls' arguments support some basic common minimum.
forced egalitarianism is certainly not socially optimal (making everyone equal to the detriment of the talented). we have to realize, however, that our system is basically set up to reward the lucky (which is a property that all sets of rules have -- the lucky are rewarded regardless :)).
but good redistributive policy would be 'responsibility sensitive' (ie reward effort) and 'brute-luck-insensitive' (ie not reward for abilities) to the extent possible. it might be that we could incentivze the welfare system to achieve this objective. those who make something of their welfare checks would receive some kinds of incentives (the earned income tax credit tries to do that and PRWORA also was legislated with this aim). btw, early childhood interventions (giving education, healthcare, and day-care) to poor children is likely to be the most successful and cost-effective in producing better societal income. most bang for the redistributive buck.
(see the evidence of nobelist james heckman, the north carolina abecderian project etc)

110 · Meena said

Amitabh - Well I'd hardly call it socialist. That's a bit extreme isn't it? I'm not telling you what to do or not - just offering an alternative viewpoint. I don't know if it would work in the United States - the size and diversity of the population IS a problem. All I'm saying is, wouldn't people be happier if there wasn't some sort of safetly net for the poorest of the poor? Weighted taxes according to income levels? If the government couldn't at least provide some basics instead of leaving people to fend for themselves? Who really believes in the American Dream anyway nowadays?

Your use of the term 'socialist' is interesting, though. In my country, there is a Socialist Party, and they are considered too far out most of the time. They want, for instance, an all-out ban on nuclear power, if my memory serves me, as well as strict control on genetic manipulation, and even higher taxes. Only in recent years they have gained a lot of popularity in the working class, because of the state of political affairs, and a lot of promises were made by the status-quo parties which weren't being kept. Now we have a Christian coalition, which is also quite socialist in a lot of ways, but also very parochial in my view. So you see why the use of 'socialist' to denote European governments irks me - you have to view them in their own context, not that of the United States.

Isn't the system in Europe ailenating many non-whites.

'brute-luck-insensitive' (ie not reward for abilities)

that should read 'brute-luck-insensitive' (ie not reward for factors which are accidents of birth)

portmanteau, as often in these discussion I don't partake because I know I'll be in over my head, such as is the case with your post. I'm not versed at all in the political sciences. I'm just trying to figure out why a slightly similar system like ours won't work in the USA, and why so many people are against it...

117 · Rahul S said

110 · Meena said

Isn't the system in Europe ailenating many non-whites.

How would that be?

SM Intern, the quote is messed up. The quote was of Rahul and the last line is mine!

119 · Meena said

portmanteau, as often in these discussion I don't partake because I know I'll be in over my head, such as is the case with your post. I'm not versed at all in the political sciences. I'm just trying to figure out why a slightly similar system like ours won't work in the USA, and why so many people are against it...

117 · Rahul S said

110 · Meena said

Isn't the system in Europe ailenating many non-whites.

How would that be?

Look at France. Why are Muslims so isolated over there? I was reading this book America Alone, and it stated that why would a talented Indian or Chinese guy move to Europe now. He said there is no benefit for them to immigrate there. But you would know better since you live there.

Well, I don't live in France so I'm not into the details about the situation there. Perhaps someone who lives in France would know better. But as I've understood it is a combination of both racism and economic factors, plus the government turning a blind eye. Low incomes, lack of opportunities, low education as well. But I don't know about the complexities of living in France. Although the climate in my own country was somewhat unstable until recently, it's never been so extreme as in France. People, especially the politicians in power right now, made a big deal of Geert Wilders' film before the release. Since it came out though it has been mostly met with jaded shrugs from the Muslim community. The younger Muslims are the more radical ones. The Dutch word for 'foreigner' is pretty much synonymous with immigrants of Muslim origin. Dutch Indonesians, people from Surinam, Chinese and all other immigrants are not acknowledged in a problematic context. Indians as a community are barely present. Being of Hindu origin, thus not directly involved in the immigration debate, I can see both points of view, though being an atheist and feminist among others I sympathise a bit more with the native Dutch. Also, most Indian families I know here are upper-middle class and well-educated. We have more in common with the Chinese that way. I don't know if the climate at the moment would favour immigration from India. I have never heard of your book by the way. What is it about? Indian-Americans are in a huge position of privilege, as I've stated a few times on this site.

SM Interns, apologies for the off-topicness, but I had to clarify. Feel free to steer this discussion on the right course...

122 · Meena said

What is it about

It's about how Muslims in Europe will be duking it out with the Europeans in the years to come. Euro's have low birth rates, and Muslims (especially the poor) will have high birth rates. Europe is an athiest nation. With Muslims gaining in population in your continent, there will be a huge culture war going on, and thus, America will have to contend with more radical extremism. Therefore, as the world becomes more extremist, America will be alone (as a religious nation, and the one that will continue to hammer down on terrorism).

119 · Meena said

portmanteau, as often in these discussion I don't partake because I know I'll be in over my head, such as is the case with your post. I'm not versed at all in the political sciences. I'm just trying to figure out why a slightly similar system like ours won't work in the USA, and why so many people are against it...

in a nutshell, people are against high taxation/welfare schemes/government support programs because:

1. you can't take my hard-earned money to benefit someone else.
2. if the unemployed/poor etc get money from the government, then they will never want to work.
3. the government shouldn't be allowed to deliver education and health because i know my preferences best. why should i allow the government to impose its values on myself and my family?
4. government regulation distorts markets (used to oppose minimum wage laws, laws used to regulate workplace conditions, maternity leave etc).

my post argues against those points, and i am trying to show how the wealthy should pay more taxes because the government spends a lot of money on the police, the court system, market regulation, environment and education. the wealthy benefit disproportionately from these societal benefits. their property is protected and they can take entrepreneurial risks in a society where contracts are enforced (contrast this with several developing countries where people's properties are arbitrarily taken away by more powerful people or armed gangs. personal safety is not guaranteed in such countries. doing business and investing in risky activity is out of the question).

secondly, you can engineer a welfare system that gives incentives to people who work hard. poor people who work are granted benefits which the non-working able poor do not receive. some programs in the US have tried to this.

thirdly, a lot of people in this world benefit from good genes and wealthy upbringing. so in some sense, their success is partially due to luck. if these people were born poor, they might not be able to do so well. once the wealthy realize that they or their kids could be born poor, they might be more willing to finance welfare. a chance to make a decent living is a social insurance -- we could all find ourselves in an unfortunate position someday.

i hope this post is clearer.

I dunno, Port, (a) we already have a lot of redistribution in the US, and (b) I've always found the Wilt Chamberlin hypo pretty compelling. I.e., it's not just about outcomes, it's also about the morality of taxation.

rob, i have rawlsian intuitions (that i would want social protection if i get screwed in the endowment lottery), but i am not in agreement with his redistributive formula which seems far too extreme to me.
this discussion, especially roemer's reply in setting limits for redistribution is more in line with my thinking. roemer also emphasizes that equality of outcomes is not what we should want. that is why i emphasized that redistribution should be choice sensitive (responsive to the efforts that people make). that said, the criticism that the us welfare system is poorly-designed is valid. we should be paying more attention to early childhood interventions, rather than remediation later on in life.

ps: i think you should really read this -- i think you might enjoy it. it would be fun to argue about it IRL, maybe at a north-east meetup :)
also, i might be writing two papers on health care and redistribution -- very simple pieces intended for a health policy crowd. and i need a conservative to read and critique them. interested?

It's about how Muslims in Europe will be duking it out with the Europeans in the years to come. Euro's have low birth rates, and Muslims (especially the poor) will have high birth rates. Europe is an athiest nation. With Muslims gaining in population in your continent, there will be a huge culture war going on, and thus, America will have to contend with more radical extremism.

I wonder if this is the reason that in most of Europe political groups on the right are becoming more popular. I know it not the PC thing to say but change in the immigration policy may be important for Europe surival.

Thanks for reminding me. Good point. Who will care about those gas hikes. I'm anticipating that the city will burn down just like the 1800's. The next great Chicago fire.

That will be blamed on some guy named Rex Grossman, who get blamed for anything that goes wrong in Chicago these days.

Port,
Not sure how useful I'll be, but, sure--e-mail them to me when you get the chance. I'll take a look at the Boston Review pieces, thanks.

rob -- thanks muchly, i will email them to you if i get them written with enough margin before deadlines to make changes.

If you are writing about health care & redistribution, be careful that (at least for Rawls) you can't take one industry (like health care, which, to keep on topic, Jindal is very experienced with ;-) ) behind the veil; the latter is applied for all of society, not individual components thereof.

131 · rob said

the latter is applied for all of society, not individual components thereof.

yes, of course. have i misrepresented rawls to such an extent that you thought such a pointer was in order? :) the paper is not about rawlsian ideas anyway, but specific policy recommendations.
intern -- sorry for taking this OT. my apologies. will stop right now.

Just trying to be helpful--seems like a common mistake even in the published literature that I've seen--sorry.

127 · Suki Dillon said

It's about how Muslims in Europe will be duking it out with the Europeans in the years to come. Euro's have low birth rates, and Muslims (especially the poor) will have high birth rates. Europe is an athiest nation. With Muslims gaining in population in your continent, there will be a huge culture war going on, and thus, America will have to contend with more radical extremism.

I wonder if this is the reason that in most of Europe political groups on the right are becoming more popular. I know it not the PC thing to say but change in the immigration policy may be important for Europe surival.

Europeans won't change their immigration policy, and they won't let Chindians to come. Why would they want to immigrate anyways (more racism there than here). Plus, when the war in Iraq was talked about, Europe was especially against sending in their troops in large numbers because they were afraid of Muslim response (since enraged Muslims in large #'s live there).

128 · Suki Dillon said

Thanks for reminding me. Good point. Who will care about those gas hikes. I'm anticipating that the city will burn down just like the 1800's. The next great Chicago fire.

That will be blamed on some guy named Rex Grossman, who get blamed for anything that goes wrong in Chicago these days.

Naw naw. Sexy Rexy will be good this year. I'm assuming that we'll be blaming Mr. Wedlock Lance Briggs, Cedric The Entertainer (Benson), or another Mr. Wedlock (Brian Urlacher). I choose Urlacher because he's being a bitch lately, and is complaining about his contract (when he has a bad back).

Sorry SM intern...I had to get off topic.

Europe is an athiest nation.

Rahul S, your insight into contemporary Islam is bested only by your impressive knowledge of geography. Are you secretly Daniel Pipes? Don't be coy now.

136 · DJ Drrrty Poonjabi said

Europe is an athiest nation.

Rahul S, your insight into contemporary Islam is bested only by your impressive knowledge of geography. Are you secretly Daniel Pipes? Don't be coy now.

Hey dude, I'm getting my info from these two books: World War IV & and America Alone. Read if you'd like.

Daniel Pipes?

I agree with many of the things that this wise man has to say. I just hope the goverments of many of the countries in Europe would take his advice and have immigration reform or else suffer a slow death.

137 · Rahul S said

136 · DJ Drrrty Poonjabi said

Europe is an athiest nation.

Rahul S, your insight into contemporary Islam is bested only by your impressive knowledge of geography. Are you secretly Daniel Pipes? Don't be coy now.

Hey dude, I'm getting my info from these two books: World War IV & and America Alone. Read if you'd like.

He meant your description of Europe as atheist as well as a 'nation'.

He meant your description of Europe as atheist as well as a 'nation'.

Bingo.

I wonder if this is the reason that in most of Europe political groups on the right are becoming more popular. I know it not the PC thing to say but change in the immigration policy may be important for Europe surival.

124. portmanteau said

in a nutshell, people are against high taxation/welfare schemes/government support programs because:
................
i hope this post is clearer.

Portmanteau: Thanks for putting it so well. I know I am for universal health care but couldn't communicate it quite so rationally. I am baffled how a large number skilled workers, who depend on being healthy to be able to survive and pay their health insurance, could be against universal health care. I am not sure what happens if someone gets sick while being in-between jobs. There is no job to pay for health and there is no health to do (find)a job.

I am baffled how a large number skilled workers, who depend on being healthy to be able to survive and pay their health insurance, could be against universal health care.

Ummm--it's really very easy, actually, not baffling at all--it's the same reason that I'm against gov't-provided food and housing--do I need "3 hots and a cot?"--yes!--but, I'm much better off getting those through capitalistic acts between consenting adults rather than via some sort of bureaucracy (haha, or, bureau-ogamy!!) Let freedom ring!! ;-)

This trend was also true in the 1970s-80s, when non-white immigration (and non-white populations) accounted for less than 10% of the total population of many Western European countries. This is still the case today, with possibly the exception of France, where estimates of the nonwhite (which is not to say, non-French if you account for migration in the context of decolonization) range from an estimated 15-20%. Neo-nationalist and neo-fascist popularity has very little to do with immigration policy, per se, and a lot to do with concepts of nationhood and differential economic integration.

I have friends that I have know since high school that live in Holland, Denmark and Sweden. And all them have told me that same story about people in those countries are fed up with the muslim immigrants and there hate for the countries that they live in. My friend in Holland is moving back here to Canada, due to that fact that Amsterdam has he said is turning into a hellhole due the high Muslim population.

143 · rob said

Ummm--it's really very easy, actually, not baffling at all--it's the same reason that I'm against gov't-provided food and housing--do I need "3 hots and a cot?"--yes!--but, I'm much better off getting those through capitalistic acts between consenting adults rather than via some sort of bureaucracy (haha, or, bureau-ogamy!!) Let freedom ring!! ;-)

I understand about food and housing since they are expected requirements. They exist for everyone and I am all for choices in what I want eat and where I want to live.

Serious illness (that prevents one from working) is a low probability but high cost event. I am not sure how someone has a "choice" or "freedom" in the illness they get. Perhaps what baffles me is the disregard to the amount of risk involved in a no health insurance position for an average income person.

I am baffled how a large number skilled workers, who depend on being healthy to be able to survive and pay their health insurance, could be against universal health care.

Because they've been fooled by the corporate interests, into thinking they'll turn into some cold-war communist russia, and have to wait 3 hours before they get a single pill.

thirdly, a lot of people in this world benefit from good genes and wealthy upbringing.

this is a good point to make actually. For example, very attractive women fall into this category.

I am not sure how someone has a "choice" or "freedom" in the illness they get.

Insurance against catastrophic illness is a good idea, yes. The question is how it's provided--markets or gov't. And why anyone needs "insurance" to pay for their yearly physical and bi-yearly teeth-cleanings is beyond me. Though I suppose from a preventative medicine perspective one could make the case that people should be paid to do that!

fooled by the corporate interests, into thinking they'll turn into some cold-war communist russia

Nahh, it's Canada that's the hobgoblin in the room!

148 · rob said

Insurance against catastrophic illness is a good idea, yes. The question is how it's provided--markets or gov't. And why anyone needs "insurance" to pay for their yearly physical and bi-yearly teeth-cleanings is beyond me. Though I suppose from a preventative medicine perspective one could make the case that people should be paid to do that!

I'm assuming that you listen to Hannity's radio talk show. He was talking about teeth cleaning & catastrophic illness insurance today.

LOL--harmonic convergence, I'm afraid--I'm not a big radio guy! Interesting, though! Probably we have the same ultimate source?

148 · rob said

Insurance against catastrophic illness is a good idea, yes. The question is how it's provided--markets or gov't.

Here's the thing though, why should someone had to pay high insurance for say, a genetic predisposition (e.g. for breast cancer, family history increases the risk)? How about if no insurance company wants to provide insurance against certain diseases?

There are certain places where insurance companies refuse to insure houses against earthquake damage. They think the earthquake hazard is just too high for them to make any profit. People have a choice of risking the damage and moving from that place. How about this happens to health? Illness doesn't stop just because it is too risky for insurance companies.

Here's the thing though, why should someone had to pay high insurance for say, a genetic predisposition

You can have some "social insurance" w/out the gov't taking over the whole health-care sector, which is significant part of the US economy. The question of how much other people should pay for some people's "genetic predisposition," is, well, a central topic in political philosophy, with a number of plausible yet incompatible answers. At any rate, it doesn't run in any unidirectional manner in favor of gov't healthcare, although that is admittedly one plausible option.

151 · Violet_in_Twilight said

148 · rob said

Insurance against catastrophic illness is a good idea, yes. The question is how it's provided--markets or gov't.

Here's the thing though, why should someone had to pay high insurance for say, a genetic predisposition (e.g. for breast cancer, family history increases the risk)? How about if no insurance company wants to provide insurance against certain diseases?

There are certain places where insurance companies refuse to insure houses against earthquake damage. They think the earthquake hazard is just too high for them to make any profit. People have a choice of risking the damage and moving from that place. How about this happens to health? Illness doesn't stop just because it is too risky for insurance companies.

We need to have the private sector help out more. I would hate to see the government get in more debt (after the burdens of Medicare, Medicaid, etc). The private sector came to the rescue during Katrina (the likes of FEMA & such). Nationalized healthcare seems like a good idea, but who's going to pay for it. Simple way to decrease costs: buying insurance across state lines. (2) eliminate bureaucratic costs (caused by government officials), which inflate the price of healthcare.

I have friends that I have know since high school that live in Holland, Denmark and Sweden. And all them have told me that same story about people in those countries are fed up with the muslim immigrants and there hate for the countries that they live in. My friend in Holland is moving back here to Canada, due to that fact that Amsterdam has he said is turning into a hellhole due the high Muslim population.

152 · rob said

The question of how much other people should pay for some people's "genetic predisposition," is, well, a central topic in political philosophy, with a number of plausible yet incompatible answers.

I know what you mean here. I think it depends on ratio of "some people" to "all people" and each person's definition of their utility curve. I guess my question is not "how much would I pay for some people?" it is more of "how much I am willing to pay to save myself from x% chance of this?". Universal health care would mean I pay when I can and don't when I can't without increasing my total risk. Moreover, I can transfer total risk. Private insurance only allows the transfer of risk that gives profits.

There could be perfectly rational arguments on why national level health care may not be feasible for U.S. But, that doesn't take away from my bafflement about why people, who depend on their health to do a job, don't think in terms of their own risk mitigation.

I'm not questioning that there is anti-immigrant sentiment. If you read my statement, it was that despite this sentiment, immigrant populations and nonwhite populations are still EXTREMELY small relative to the native and white populations, and that nativist and anti-Muslim sentiment are not always the direct result of immigration in and of itself, but rather of complex factors that are impacted by immigration. In the UK in the 70s, this hatred was directed towards ALL South Asians, and disproportionately (probably b/c of their disproportionately larger share of the migrant population) towards Sikhs. Today it is Muslims. My point was that it is a knee-jerk reaction to blame immigration policy and argue for closed borders.

But thing's in Europe have changed since the 70's. There are many European Muslims who have anti-west beliefs and are very open about it. You have mosque that preach hatered for the west and leaders in the community speaking about how islam is gonna take over Europe and some have even called for violence against non-believers.

The bombings in Spain, and England, the murder of Van Gogh and several riots. In some parts of Europe muslim make up a large % of the rapists despite being a very small % of the population.

Could you image any where else in the world if groups of immigrants were causing problems like this, what would happen to the minority group.

Europe does need to wake up to what's happening within it.