[kenberg]

I have a couple of questions (honest questions I really do not know the answer to).

Lugar says:

Quote

The administration's initiatives allow Homeland Security officials to forgo deportation, on a case-by-case basis, of undocumented residents who came here as children before June 15, 2007, and of certain undocumented parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents. Both are in keeping with similar programs put in place by both Republican and Democratic presidents dating from the Eisenhower administration.

I don't follow this closely but I thought that the executive order applied in a blanket way to people in certain situations. That is, individuals covered by this order could perhaps still be deported after a review on a case by case basis, but the default would be that they would not be deported.

Forgoing deportation on a case by case basis, but with deportation as the default, is quite different from a default that forbids deportation for designated groups but is subject to case by case exceptions. I thought the policy was the latter. Am I wrong about this?

Also, I am unsure of just how similar this is to the actions of Eisenhower. I have read a bit about this in the past, but I don't much remember the details.

For me, the Lugar piece reads more like a political piece than a piece that is intended to be informative. He says "The immense moral and legal consequences of a deportation campaign targeting up to 11 million undocumented immigrants are obvious." Sure, fair enough. If he wants to argue against Donald Trump, on this or other issues, I expect I agree with him. But the issues involving the Obama executive order are, I believe, more subtle. His piece does not help me much in thinking these issues through.

Immigration is not something that keeps me awake at night thinking about it. But I want to be an informed citizen.

[Winstonm]

No shock here but I am glad to see I am not alone in my revulsion with what is termed "news" these days.

Quote

Only 6 percent of people say they have a great deal of confidence in the press, about the same level of trust Americans have in Congress, according to a new survey released on Sunday.

The study mirrors past reports that found the public’s trust in mass media has reached historic lows, according to data gathered by the Media Insight Project, a partnership between The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute. The report found faith in the press was just slightly higher than the 4 percent of people who said they trusted Congress.

Alongside the dire findings, the report found respondents valued accuracy above all else, with 85 percent of people saying it was extremely important to avoid errors in coverage. Timeliness and clarity followed closely, with 76 percent and 72 percent respectively saying those attributes were imperative among media sources.

When there is no accountability for what is said all you have is an attempt to entertain rather than enlighten.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-18, 08:10, said:

When there is no accountability for what is said all you have is an attempt to entertain rather than enlighten.

Sums up the state of media quite well.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2016-April-10, 07:21, said:

Over the years I have known a number of people who describe themselves as Socialists. Often I find that they see things differently than I do.

Same here, but I would not necesarily reject a politician who labels himself as socialist. The label means different things in different parts of the World, and possibly it could also be a generational thing, as class war and USSR connections become increasingly irelevant.

In Northern Europe, we have social democrats (which have been the major force in building the wellfare state which Bernie is so fond of), and then we have socialists which are somewhat further to the left and have some ideas which are somewhat detached from reality.

In Southern Europe, the political parties aligned with northern European Social Democrats tend to call themselves socialist parties, so presumably a Spanish or French "socialist" may be appr. what I would call a social democrat.

I don't know if "democratic socialist" is one or the other, but probably it is a bit unclear as USA doesn't have much tradition in that area. Anyway, Bernie's ideas don't sound that socialist to me. “Medicare/aid for everyone” is not quite like the British/Scandinavian model (which would be more like “VA for all”), let alone socialist.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2016-April-19, 11:02, said:

Same here, but I would not necesarily reject a politician who labels himself as socialist. The label means different things in different parts of the World, and possibly it could also be a generational thing, as class war and USSR connections become increasingly irrelevant.

In Northern Europe, we have social democrats (which have been the major force in building the wellfare state which Bernie is so fond of), and then we have socialists which are somewhat further to the left and have some ideas which are somewhat detached from reality.

In Southern Europe, the political parties aligned with northern European Social Democrats tend to call themselves socialist parties, so presumably a Spanish or French "socialist" may be appr. what I would call a social democrat.

I don't know if "democratic socialist" is one or the other, but probably it is a bit unclear as USA doesn't have much tradition in that area. Anyway, Bernie's ideas don't sound that socialist to me. "Medicare/aid for everyone" is not quite like the British/Scandinavian model (which would be more like "VA for all"), let alone socialist.

Yes, or at least a qualified yes. What's in a name and all that. If, after some thought, I came to think of him as a good choice I would not let a label stop me.

My favorite story about labels. Back in the 1970s after the Shah of Iran fell and Americans were taken hostage in the Embassy, all of the Iranian graduate students suddenly became Persian. I considered telling them that I did not hold them responsible for the hostage taking but that I was insulted that they thought I wouldn't see through this ploy. In truth I thought it inventive and amusing.

Back to Bernie. We will know more in a few hours, but I think it's over. I've made up my mind at any rate, but really I think that race is over. There are, of course, other races.

Chris Van Hollen is currently my Representative to Congress and he gets good reviews from just about everyone. Barbara Mikulski is a Maryland Senator, a good one, but she is retiring. Van Hollen is running to replace her. It seemed clear cut, and for me it is, but he has to contend with a strong, if somewhat incomprehensible, challenge. Of course we then have to find a replacement for Van Hollen in the House. I still have a week to decide, I'm working on it.

Maryland is a Democratic state so probably the primary winner becomes the overall winner but this is not written in stone. We have a Republican governor, the third since I came here in 1967.He is at some sort of reord high in approval ratings.

[mike777]

helene_t, on 2016-April-19, 11:02, said:

Same here, but I would not necesarily reject a politician who labels himself as socialist. The label means different things in different parts of the World, and possibly it could also be a generational thing, as class war and USSR connections become increasingly irelevant.

In Northern Europe, we have social democrats (which have been the major force in building the wellfare state which Bernie is so fond of), and then we have socialists which are somewhat further to the left and have some ideas which are somewhat detached from reality.

In Southern Europe, the political parties aligned with northern European Social Democrats tend to call themselves socialist parties, so presumably a Spanish or French "socialist" may be appr. what I would call a social democrat.

I don't know if "democratic socialist" is one or the other, but probably it is a bit unclear as USA doesn't have much tradition in that area. Anyway, Bernie's ideas don't sound that socialist to me. “Medicare/aid for everyone” is not quite like the British/Scandinavian model (which would be more like “VA for all”), let alone socialist.

In practice you are correct. Most here if you ask people on the street do not know the definition of socialist, so they make one up.

In economic theory there is a standard definition of socialism.

As for "democratic socialism" I would say here in the USA we think of Sweden or Denmark. In other words countries the vast majority here in the USA have little, very little knowledge of how the country really works but they sound cool and have hot girls.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2016-April-19, 11:02, said:

Bernie's ideas don't sound that socialist to me.

American politics is sometimes described as a choice between the right and then even more right. Socialist and Liberal are often used as insults without any regard to the fact that these terms actually mean something real in the rest of the world. As I wrote before, it would be great if there was a sensible debate over there about some serious issues but, quite frankly, expectation is pretty low.

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-19, 16:29, said:

American politics is sometimes described as a choice between the right and then even more right. Socialist and Liberal are often used as insults without any regard to the fact that these terms actually mean something real in the rest of the world. As I wrote before, it would be great if there was a sensible debate over there about some serious issues but, quite frankly, expectation is pretty low.

You would be shocked how little Americans know of their own history. I am talking about basic stuff, very basic stuff. One example is ask who fought in the Civil War or even roughly when was it. A tricky question might be, who won the civil war.

[y66]

Not a Trump fan but still very happy to see him trounce his rivals Kasich and Cruz, especially Cruz, in New York.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-19, 16:29, said:

American politics is sometimes described as a choice between the right and then even more right. Socialist and Liberal are often used as insults without any regard to the fact that these terms actually mean something real in the rest of the world. As I wrote before, it would be great if there was a sensible debate over there about some serious issues but, quite frankly, expectation is pretty low.

Serious issues are difficult. Which means, to a large extent, we have to decide whom we trust. Or sort of trust.

The global economy, how to cope: I'm not smart enough. So I look for what I would like to see happen. I look at my personal history. A father who came to this country when he was ten, finished elementary school at 13, his mother had been dead since about his birth, his father died when he was twelve. My father had a pretty decent life. Not a spectacular life, not the immigrant that gets his name in history books, a decent life. I would like this country to continue to provide such opportunity. I don't know how to bring to about, there appear to be some problems. I understate. Economic forces overwhelm us. This does not make me right wing, it does not make me left wing. It leaves me uncertain. As so much does. I think that I favor the TransPacificPact. I am not smart enough to defend that position.

Security: I was two when Pearl Harbor was bombed, six when we nuked Hiroshima. It makes an impression. Massive realignments have taken place over my lifetime. Military force has played a significant role, often a determining role, as the world has shifted. Economic forces are hugely important in this. What do I make of it all? The world is a tough place, that's clear. The rest is nebulous. What are we to do about ISIS? I doubt that we should just ignore it. Iran? North Korea? I don't know. I am very suspicious of anyone who thinks that the answer is clear. Cybersecurity seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

Social issues: I have no interest in telling others how to live their lives, none at all. But I am not interested in providing unlimited financial support so that others can live a life they cannot afford on their own. I very much support schooling, training, any sort of support that helps people so that, after a period of time, they will not need further support beyond the social structures that are there for all of us. Part of a successful life comes from understanding what you can afford and what you cannot.

The above is off the top of my head. No doubt I could expand on this. The most striking thing, for me, is how difficult it all is.

I'm pretty much a Democrat, but it is not signed in blood. I don't much care for Sanders, I would find it very difficult to have to listen to him for four years. I don't think Obama has been all that great a president. I think the Republicans set out to make Obama's term as unsuccessful as possible, and I don't think that the country should forgive them for this. There are limits to what is acceptable, even in politics.
The tv has just informed me that Hillary has won in NY, it appears to be by a substantial margin but this will take a while yet. A Clinton presidency may not be the best thing I can imagine, I think it is the best thing that is available and could, possibly, work out very well.

I haven't noticed that Americans are all that much dumber than the world as a whole, I just think the problems are tough.

Does this make be right wing? The even more right wing? Left wing? Wingless? I like penguins, so wingless is fine.

[akwoo]

kenberg, on 2016-April-19, 20:06, said:

Serious issues are difficult. Which means, to a large extent, we have to decide whom we trust. Or sort of trust.

Yes - but you continue to engage in the issues and think about them. You also realize that the politicians don't know much better either and are also just trying their best to figure out what's going on. You don't just say "The world is hard. You politicians go take care of it and leave me to follow the Kardashians."

[mike777]

akwoo, on 2016-April-20, 00:22, said:

Yes - but you continue to engage in the issues and think about them. You also realize that the politicians don't know much better either and are also just trying their best to figure out what's going on. You don't just say "The world is hard. You politicians go take care of it and leave me to follow the Kardashians."

Why not? If we follow your logic you argue for a King!


Your logic is thousands of years old, the democracy is stupid, we need a King!


Your argument is ancient, make me King and I will make the people smart, I will bring Utopia with the people!

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-April-19, 20:06, said:

I haven't noticed that Americans are all that much dumber than the world as a whole, I just think the problems are tough.

Does this make be right wing? The even more right wing? Left wing? Wingless? I like penguins, so wingless is fine.

It is clear that Americans are not "dumber" than people in other countries. One of the remarkable things about humans is that intelligence is so even across the population despite large variations within the population groups. But all of us are shaped by our life experiences and the culture we are brought up in. I always had an interest in history as a child but I cannot say that I have profited financially from it. If that is your measure then time spent learning about the American Civil War is time wasted.

From what you wrote I would suggest you are left/centre-left in an American context and centre-right by European standards. Is there a large difference between your position and that of Tony Blair, for example?

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-20, 02:24, said:

It is clear that Americans are not "dumber" than people in other countries. One of the remarkable things about humans is that intelligence is so even across the population despite large variations within the population groups. But all of us are shaped by our life experiences and the culture we are brought up in. I always had an interest in history as a child but I cannot say that I have profited financially from it. If that is your measure then time spent learning about the American Civil War is time wasted.

From what you wrote I would suggest you are left/centre-left in an American context and centre-right by European standards. Is there a large difference between your position and that of Tony Blair, for example?

Please keep in mind that here in America all we know of Tony Blair is that he has sex with Murdoch's then very young wife, that is about all we know of history.

Walk down any street in America with his picture I bet 90-99% have no idea who he is.

[Zelandakh]

From checking online, Wendi Deng was 44 when she and Murdoch divorced, so hardly "very young". Of course he was 82 so it is all relative. If you choose to marry someone nearly 40 years your junior, you should perhaps not be overly surprised if something like that happens, especially if that person did exactly the same thing in their previous marriage. I daresay both parties got something from the 14 years they were together.

As for Blair, I am surprised Americans do not know him from the Iraq war. The reports on this side of The Pond suggested he was not only well known but also rather popular over there at that time.

[kenberg]

akwoo, on 2016-April-20, 00:22, said:

Yes - but you continue to engage in the issues and think about them. You also realize that the politicians don't know much better either and are also just trying their best to figure out what's going on. You don't just say "The world is hard. You politicians go take care of it and leave me to follow the Kardashians."

Thanks.

One of these days I am going to sit down at the computer and find out who the Kardashians are. One of them is named Kim.

mike777, on 2016-April-20, 02:28, said:

Please keep in mind that here in America all we know of Tony Blair is that he has sex with Murdoch's then very young wife, that is about all we know of history.

Walk down any street in America with his picture I bet 90-99% have no idea who he is.

Tony who? OK, joking, but I did not know about Ms. Murdoch.

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-20, 02:24, said:

But all of us are shaped by our life experiences and the culture we are brought up in.

True indeed, and I think important.

I grew up in Minnesota where, from the white man's viewpoint, history began sometime in the 19th century. Taking a trip meant going fishing in northern Minnesota. When I was in graduate school I drove out to Boston (someone I knew was now going to MIT) and found that history went back to the 18th century or even earlier. Then I went to England. And later to Greece. Maybe I should try Egypt. Of course I read growing up. There lies the noblest Roman of them all, etc. But physical presence makes a difference. Growing up I biked to Fort Snelling on the Mississippi, built in 1819 (I looked it up), in Greece I wandered around Delphi where Oedipus received his ominous warning some years earlier.

History is interesting for its own sake. Is it useful? I think so. The world evolves, it might not work well to transplant a legal or social or economic approach from the whatever century you choose to our modern times. But the fact that we cannot simply copy what was done before does not make the study of problems and how they were, or were not, solved useless.

Short version. We probably agree, at least more or less.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-April-20, 06:58, said:

Short version. We probably agree, at least more or less.

We usually do Ken.

[PassedOut]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-20, 06:47, said:

From checking online, Wendi Deng was 44 when she and Murdoch divorced, so hardly "very young". Of course he was 82 so it is all relative. If you choose to marry someone nearly 40 years your junior, you should perhaps not be overly surprised if something like that happens, especially if that person did exactly the same thing in their previous marriage. I daresay both parties got something from the 14 years they were together.

As for Blair, I am surprised Americans do not know him from the Iraq war. The reports on this side of The Pond suggested he was not only well known but also rather popular over there at that time.

People travel in different circles. I don't believe I that know any adult who doesn't know who Tony Blair is, although I suppose I might find someone like that if I looked. In fact, BBC online is one of the main sources of news here. I have to confess, though, that I didn't know about the Wendi Deng sex thing (but it's not something I'd look for).

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-20, 06:47, said:

From checking online, Wendi Deng was 44 when she and Murdoch divorced, so hardly "very young". Of course he was 82 so it is all relative.

Actual conversation.

Husband, as wife is approaching 40th birthday: When my wife turns 40, I am trading her in for two 20s.
Wife, in quick response: You couldn't handle two 20s.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-April-19, 11:49, said:

Yes, or at least a qualified yes. What's in a name and all that. If, after some thought, I came to think of him as a good choice I would not let a label stop me.

My favorite story about labels. Back in the 1970s after the Shah of Iran fell and Americans were taken hostage in the Embassy, all of the Iranian graduate students suddenly became Persian. I considered telling them that I did not hold them responsible for the hostage taking but that I was insulted that they thought I wouldn't see through this ploy. In truth I thought it inventive and amusing.

Names do matter -- they have many associations, and it's hard to avoid the unconscious biases that they create. These days, it's hard for many people to avoid being prejudiced against Muslims because of the Muslim extremists who are engaging in terrorism. And why have we had to change the term used to refer to black people and homosexuals over the years? Because of the negative connotations associated with previous words.

And "socialist" has the same problem -- during the Cold War, it was generally considered here to be equivalent to communism, which was the enemy's ideology. That's why Bernie has to emphasize democratic, to reinforce that this is not the same as communist socialism.