7/2 So the bombers in England were doctors. Popular leftist wisdom is
that Muslims are desperate because of the poor conditions they
live in and their lack of education. If only we worked hard to
improve their conditions, then they would not grow up to be suicide
bombers, goes the thinking, because they would have something to
live for. Now that MDs are blowing themselves up can we at least
begin to consider that perhaps religious wars are not rational?
\_ Popular leftist wisdom is that religious people are nutters,
not that Muslim's are desperate because they are poor. Did you
invent that straw man all by yourself?
\_ Actually, I've heard many people (including my law profs) say
that if there was more prosperity for the ordinary people in
the middle east there would be less suicide bombings, &c. and
thus the sol'n to the problem is to improve conditions over
there for (i.e. create a middle class, to promote stability).
I do not know what the factual, historic or economic theory
basis is for this assertion, but I have heard it before from
self-described "lefties." -!op
\_ Isn't that the neocon argument? If we just give them the
trappings of US-style capitalism, they will luv us forever
and want to be just like us?
\_ You forgot the part where we knock the shit out of them
first to show them who's best.
\_ No, it isn't. The left isn't saying they need our
economic system, just our prosperity.
\_ I guess you're right, although that makes no sense at
all. -!pp
\_ It makes sense if you believe that there are other
ways to achieve economic prosperity.
\_ Sure, but name one that's proven to work as well.
\_ It depends a lot on what you mean by "well"
and what you mean by "our economic system."
Does a Scandanavian-style mixed economy count?
How about a State authoritarian Singapore style
model? And not that I am prepared to defend it,
but there are plenty of people on the left who
think that State socialism is the way to go.
Many, many (probably most people worldwide) are
more interested in creating a base level of
prosperity for everyone, not just a mass of
phenomenal wealth for the top 1%. The US model
is not widely emulated for a reason.
\_ *Every* country has a top 1% with phenomal
wealth. Good luck changing that. It would
be a first in world history if it happened.
\_ Uh, Cuba?
\_ Looked at relatively, especially Cuba.
\_ Any evidence for this statement?
Everyone I know who has been to
Cuba says otherwise, but maybe you
have some hard facts to back up
your opinion.
\_ Oddly enough, I don't have
Fidel's tax returns in front of
me. Why don't you go ahead and
tell us what "everyone [you]
know who has been to Cuba says"?
\_ They say that the standard
of living is very flat and
that no one lives
ostentatiously. They also say
that the hospitals are
missing every other light bulb
to save electricity.
\_ Did they travel in the
same circles as Castro and
that tier? I'll grant you
that it's flat for most,
but if Fidel needs the
latest/greatest tech for
his health, the slope is
steep.
\_ Do you think the distribution of wealth
is the same world-wide? Look at this
graphical representation:
http://www.lcurve.org
In the US, the top 0.1% makes 8% of the
overall income, in Sweden it is 1%. So
I guess it depends on what you mean by
"phenomenal". 10X average is a lot, but
much less phenomenal than 80X, right?
\_ 10X is phenomenal. 80X is too and
doesn't make 10X any less so. Would
you think 10X your salary was
phenomenal or just 'a lot' because
it wasn't 80X?
\_ I think 10X average salary is merely
"a lot." At this point it is merely
semantics.
\_ So if you got 10X your current
you wouldn't think that was
phenomenal? Okey dokey. Not
much to be said to that when 10X
is the difference between doing
well enough and being able to
retire early doing whatever you
want with your life while
you're still young enough to
do it after only a few years of
10X.
\_ I am already making 5X median
income, so no, doubling my
salary wouldn't really change
my life that much. You aren't
paying much attention to the
words you are using. And no,
even if my salary doubled, I
wouldn't be able to retire
soon.
\_ Is your law professor a "leftist"?
\- i think you also have to consider the thesis "there are things
that matter to people other than job prospects" ... having your
"homeland" under somebody elsese rule seems to be a good way to
get people upset, for example. i am not too familar with what's
under the hood of japanese suicider bombers [how willing they
were etc], but at least it cant be glibly chalked up to
religion, let alone islam. i dunno the socioeconomic status of
the IRA, but they clearly werent desperately poor [not suicide
bombers, but terrorists and willing to die (see eg BOBBY SANDS,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_Hunger_Strike I dont
think all the TAMIL TIGER suicide bombers are in desperate
straits financially. So consider looking at the "dual"
... rather than focusing on what one person being a suicide
bomber says about him, what does a steady availability of them
say about how fucked up things must be. I think usually there
are better structural explanations for many things than the
vague cultural ones [like the talk in the 8-s about "asian
capitalism" ... hey guess what, the japanese economy looks
different from the US one probably more because of corporate
structure laws and finance laws, not these vague "harmony and
patience" arguments ... the german economy also looks
different, in part because they have firm level unions.
finally, the islamic suicide bombers phenomena may just be
testimony to a sosophisticated and expert system of brainwashing,
like JIM JONES, DKORESH etc. Anyway, the most on point suggestion
I have is YMWTGF(alan krueger terrorism). i am not saying
islam nor general life conditions play no role, but it is
more complicated than that.
bomber says about him, what does a steady availability (and
climbing income of the candidates) of them say about how fucked
up things must be. I think usually there are better structural
explanations for many things than the vague cultural ones [like
the talk in the 80s about "asian capitalism" ... hey guess
what, the japanese economy looks different from the US one
probably more because of corporate structure laws and finance
laws, not these vague "harmony and patience" arguments ... the
german economy also looks different, in part because they have
firm level unions. finally, the islamic suicide bombers
phenomena may just be testimony to a sophisticated and expert
system of brainwashing, like JIM JONES, DKORESH etc. Anyway,
the most on point suggestion I have is YMWTGF(ALAN KRUEGER
terrorism). i am not saying islam nor general life conditions
play no role, but it is more complicated than that.
\- http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i39/39b01001.htm --psb
\_ So George Bush is a leftist now. This explains much.
\_ This has been in doubt for some time: http://csua.org/u/j2r
(Boston Globe article on book by Robert A. Pape). However, it's
common sense that Muslim Fundamentalist groups are attractive to
the disenfranchised, particularly in our ally countries (like
Egypt and Saudi Arabia) where odds of bettering your situation
through the status quo are vanishingly slim. Cf. Islamic Rev. in
Iran.
\_ And because SA and E are dictatorships it is a good idea to
bomb Americans and Europeans? I'm not following this line of
thought.
\_ Sorry, no, not my point. My point is that we still need to
promote good economics and democratic politics in these
countries if we don't want them to get taken over by religious
fanatics.
\_ Anyone who seriously makes this claim (about Islamic radicals)
hasn't spent much time studying or thinking about it. The leadership
of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and
the Wahhabiists in Saudi Arabia are all educated, mostly middle
class men. Now it might be true that they find themselves
marginalized and with little opportunity to change their lot, but
they are certainly not starving and not even poor, by their
countries standards. Palestine is kind of a different story,
but don't you think that not having jobs, having your freedom
of movement and your right of statehood taken away might tend
to breed resentment?
\_ No one has a 'right of statehood'. Nations have always come and
gone based on the (mis)fortunes of war, disease, natural
disasters, etc.
\_ Your opinion is in disagreement with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the UN, but I guess you are entitled to
it. Who else in the world does not have citizenship rights?
People don't neccesarily have the right to the state that
they want, but everyone has the right to citizenship.
\_ That's a 'right' on paper. It is not a natural right. And
it is not my opinion that countries come and go, it is
historical fact. Maybe you meant something else.
\_ The right to citizenship comes and goes? I don't think
so, but I guess if you want to bring back slavery, you
are welcome to it.
\_ No. The existence of nations/states. And no, most
conquered people were not historically made citizens
of the conquering state. When the Maya fell apart
due to disease or whatever it was, there was no
replacement state. If you lived behind the Iron
Curtain I guess you were a citizen of something but
that didn't come with any rights. If you were born
in this country not that long ago as an Eskimo or
continental Native America, then no you weren't a
citizen. And no, slavery is not the only alternative
to citizenship as I just demonstrated.
\_ Stating it like that reminds me of the old historical cycle,
middle class wants to be upper class so convinces lower class to
fight for them. Sometimes the middle class succeeds and trades
places with the upper class, but the lower class stays at the
bottom.
\_ More like lowest classes rebel after being starved out, make
some idiot king and things are better for a short time until
they have to do it all over again. Elected systems of
government implicitly acknowledge this cycle by giving the
people a non-bloody way to turn over the government every
so often. That's why you'll *never* see a revolution in this
country or any other elective government system.
\_ Well, yes, elections _and_ a degree of complacency brought
about by a pretty good standard of living even for the
poor. The Upper Class would do well to remember that the
distance between Harlem and the Upper East Side is really
negligible-- and the distance between Compton and Beverly
Hills even more so.
\- See "great wall of grosse pointe" aka alter rd. |
http://csua.com/feed/