[hrothgar]

 johnu, on 2024-July-27, 20:34, said:

This is not a new problem about what do do about asylum seekers. In the runup to WWII and after, the US refused entry to thousands of Jewish refugees trying to escape Nazi Germany. There's a story about one of the refugees who was discovered to be a Nazi spy, and his story was used as an excuse to keep out thousands of harmless refugees, but the refusal to take in refugees had started years before. The irony is that the US already had thousand of VIPs who were Nazi sympathizers or worse like Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg who had no restrictions in their daily lives.

It should be noted that the current set of asylum laws were created in response to the horrific actions of the US (and other Western countries) in responding to refugee flows before and during the Second World War.

What has changed today is

1. The number of refugees is spiking (largely due to issues related to climate change and the resulting political instability in the Global South)
2. At least in the US, congress isn't providing adequate funding to support the system, preferring instead to focus on political grandstanding around build a "wall"

[hrothgar]

 johnu, on 2024-July-23, 17:59, said:

I didn't know the QOP had a branch in the UK.

FWIW, I don't think that shyams is a QAnon type

He strikes me more as one of those weird old school tankies / Trotskyites in the Revolutionary Communist Party after the scales fell from their eyes, who then started mainlining Brett Weinstein...

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2024-July-27, 19:41, said:

We can't really compare the situation at the southern border these days with those who arrived at Ellis Island like your father. These are not all ordinary immigrants just looking for a better life. Many of them are refugees fleeing brutal societies in South America. Some relatively simple quota policies can be used for normal immigrants, but refugees require special consideration and compassion. Ideally we should never turn away refugees, but that's not practical, either. At a minimum, we need to verify that they really are in danger in their home countries.

This is hard work and requires time and resources, but our immigration court system is woefully inadequate for the job.

Agreed, the situation when my father arrived in 1910 is different from today. There have always been highly varied views about immigrants but yes, today is different from long ago.

However. One tihng I was suggesting was that however we set our overall immigration policy, we might add this: Those who wish to come here will be expected to cooperate with our policy. Maybe some are in a situation where going through the normal border process would be impractical, they must take a sevretive route to cross the border. Ok, but once they cross the border then they should present themselves and explain their wishes and why they think they qualify to remain here. As with many things, I am not an expert or even particularly well-infomred about just what is happening. Still, I gather we are spending a lot of resources finding those who have crossed the border secretively and are now, well, somewhere.

We need a clear policy on who qualifies to stay here and who does not. But then, a person who crosses the border should be expected to present himself. Failure to do so could be regarded as at least a partiel reason, when he is encountered, to deny residence. Maybe not the whole story, but part of it. Criteria for admission can be debated. After that is settled, then we should expect those who wish to come here to present themselves to see if they meet the criteria. Thise who do not do so probably think that they do not meet the criteria, they very well may be right, but at any rate they should present themselves for an evaluation.

Even though immigration issues in 1910 were different from now, I think my father's experience is an example of how we would like things to go. He and his brother came here, learned what they were expected to do and did it. He finished eigth grade, went to work, married my mother in 1923 ( or thereabouts) they adopted me in 1939, I had a good childhood. Many, I think most, immigrants coulld tell a similar story. But there is also immigration chaos, and I am thinking about how to reduce it.

Added: The above reflects my way of thinking on mny problems. Simple is often better, better for everyone. As it is, would be immigrants often pay out a lot of money for help, risk their lives, cross illegally, hide out. Maybe we cannot totally correct this but if the system were set up so that a would-be immigrant thinks "Hmm. Getting there is tough. If, after I get there, I do not present myself and make my case for staying, then when I eventually get caught they will take my non-cooperation as good reason for sending me back. Maybe I had better think through whether my case for being allowed to stay is good enough so that I am prepared to present myself to authorities after I get across the border". If his case is weak, and thus he decides he must make other plans, this is likely to be best for everyone inicluing him. I am not saying my suggestion is perfect, I am claiming that right ow we have a giant mess, everyone agrees with that, and maybe my suggestion for simplifying thimgs has merit.

[Winstonm]

 pilowsky, on 2024-July-25, 19:05, said:

See what happens when you engage with trolls.

Yes, the insurrection was at the capiTOL, not the capiTAL.

[shyams]

 hrothgar, on 2024-July-28, 06:57, said:

FWIW, I don't think that shyams is a QAnon type

He strikes me more as one of those weird old school tankies / Trotskyites in the Revolutionary Communist Party after the scales fell from their eyes, who then started mainlining Brett Weinstein...

Pre-2000 not a Britisher.
2002 Council elections: Voted Labour (they won)
2005 General elections: Voted Liberal Democrats (my personal "never Blair" election). Blair won.
2006 Council elections: Voted Liberal Democrats (they won). Did not vote in any subsequent Council elections.
2010 General elections: Voted Labour (they lost)
2015 General elections: Voted Conservatives (they won) --- Edit: Not sure of this one.
2017 General elections (the "never Corbyn" election): Voted Conservatives (they won)
2019 General elections (the "never Corbyn", "never BoJo" election): Did not vote. Would have voted Labour ("never Boris" feeling was stronger)
2024 General elections: Edit: Originally wanted to vote Conservatives (I knew they'd lose) but was coming around to the idea of voting Labour. Did not matter anyways... I could not vote due to unplanned travel.

London Mayor elections: Voted Ken Livingston (won in 2004 & lost in 2008), did not vote in any subsequent ones (could not stomach voting for Boris)

---

Objectively think that the US markets (i.e. competitive landscape) are horribly warped. The UK/EU markets were better, but getting worse over time.

The bureaucracy of the EU Commission (in terms of free-market approach, regulation of food quality, and enhancing the "common market" features) was always a strength for the EU. Alas, we are no longer part of EU or its common market.

UK regulators are still better --- UK CMA is generally better the FTC (which was abysmal before Biden's appointee, Lina Khan) and UK FSA is much better than the FDA. BoE is a better Regulator & comparable in monetary policy to the Fed (the ECB is terrible both as regulator and in their monetary policies).

---

If I were American, I'd definitely be Independent.

I'd never have voted for Dubya (00 & 04), would definitely have voted for Obama (08 & 12).
I would have voted for Bernie in the 2016 primaries, but not in 2020 primaries (probably would have voted for Mayor Pete).
No strong conviction on which side to vote in 2016 (maybe Hillary, maybe abstain).
Definitely would have voted Biden in 2020.
Definitely would not have voted Biden in 2024 (probably would have voted Trump to spite the Dem establishment for allowing Biden to run for a 2nd term).

---

Free markets believer; also believe in fair pay (and that the USA undervalues its "blue collar" workers + overvalues its C-suite).

Eclectic readership or mostly non-mainstream journalists (from far left e.g. Revolutionary Black Network to the right e.g. Tucker Carlson). Never listened to or read Bret Weinstein (or his wife Heather, or his brother Eric). Follow Tim Wu (@superwuster on X) for his views on US Markets; he's a genius and his views have positively influenced my thinking.

Read more Ayn Rand (in my youth) than all leftie authors combined to-date. Also read every word of Ayn Rand's "I am John Galt" speech but it's been decades since and I've no desire to read it ever again.

I'd happily behave like a Trotskyite or a Libertarian if it suits my goals. I trust no politicians --- I need them but that does not mean I am obliged to trust them.

Finally, there are a few British posters here (incl. on this thread). I am almost certain that it would barely matter to them how I voted and who I support politically. They are more likely to be hostile to me if I support a rival football team (I am serious! "Soccer" is more important than politics).


Enjoy! LOL

PS: As should be clear by now, I have an above average memory.

[kenberg]

 shyams, on 2024-July-28, 12:07, said:

Pre-2000 not a Britisher.
2002 Council elections: Voted Labour (they won)
2005 General elections: Voted Liberal Democrats (my personal "never Blair" election). Blair won.
2006 Council elections: Voted Liberal Democrats (they won). Did not vote in any subsequent Council elections.
2010 General elections: Voted Labour (they lost)
2015 General elections: Voted Conservatives (they won)
2017 General elections (the "never Corbyn" election): Voted Conservatives (they won)
2019 General elections (the "never Corbyn", "never BoJo" election): Did not vote. Would have voted Labour ("never Boris" feeling was stronger)
2024 General elections: Wanted to vote Conservatives, could not vote due to unplanned travel.

London Mayor elections: Voted Ken Livingston (won in 2004 & lost in 2008), did not vote in any subsequent ones (could not stomach voting for Boris)

---

Objectively think that the US markets (i.e. competitive landscape) are horribly warped. The UK/EU markets were better, but getting worse over time.

The bureaucracy of the EU Commission (in terms of free-market approach, regulation of food quality, and enhancing the "common market" features) was always a strength for the EU. Alas, we are no longer part of EU or its common market.

UK regulators are still better --- UK CMA is generally better the FTC (which was abysmal before Biden's appointee, Lina Khan) and UK FSA is much better than the FDA. BoE is a better Regulator & comparable in monetary policy to the Fed (the ECB is terrible both as regulator and in their monetary policies).

---

If I were American, I'd definitely be Independent.

I'd never have voted for Dubya (00 & 04), would definitely have voted for Obama (08 & 12).
I would have voted for Bernie in the 2016 primaries, but not in 2020 primaries (probably would have voted for Mayor Pete).
No strong conviction on which side to vote in 2016 (maybe Hillary, maybe abstain).
Definitely would have voted Biden in 2020.
Definitely would not have voted Biden in 2024 (probably would have voted Trump to spite the Dem establishment for allowing Biden to run for a 2nd term).

---

Free markets believer; also believe in fair pay (and that the USA undervalues its "blue collar" workers + overvalues its C-suite).

Eclectic readership or mostly non-mainstream journalists (from far left e.g. Revolutionary Black Network to the right e.g. Tucker Carlson). Never listened to or read Bret Weinstein (or his wife Heather, or his brother Eric). Follow Tim Wu (@superwuster on X) for his views on US Markets; he's a genius and his views have positively influenced my thinking.

Read more Ayn Rand (in my youth) than all leftie authors combined to-date. Also read every word of Ayn Rand's "I am John Galt" speech but it's been decades since and I've no desire to read it ever again.

I'd happily behave like a Trotskyite or a Libertarian if it suits my goals. I trust no politicians --- I need them but that does not mean I am obliged to trust them.

Finally, there are a few British posters here (incl. on this thread). I am almost certain that it would barely matter to them how I voted and who I support politically. They are more likely to be hostile to me if I support a rival football team (I am serious! "Soccer" is more important than politics).


Enjoy! LOL

PS: As should be clear by now, I have an above average memory.

I once had an above average memory, or it seems to me that maybe I once did.


Sometime back I decided that I want to be as clear as I can be about what I think. I forget about changing the mind of someone else, it's my goal to be clear as to my own thinking and then leave it be. And then I try to listen. It seems to me that you are thinking along these same lines.

As to Ayn Rand, I tried reading her back in the day, maybe 1965 or so, I forget. I just couldn't stick with it. My wife Becky read Atlas Shrugged and maybe The Fountanhead, She reads about 12 books for eveery book I read. She liked the stories but as far as politics or economic thinking go she and I are largely of the same sort. I am glad Harris took over the 2024 ticket from Biden. Becky is very very glad, I settle for just being glad, coupled with a wish they had gone about it sooner and better, and if they had done that, they could have considered other choices.

I don't follow British politics closely enough to make an informed comment on your lisy of choices.

[Winstonm]

I read Atlas Shrugged when I waa around 18 or 19. I outgrew it by 30. By 40, I couldn't believe that anyone but teenagers bought its arguments. It's easy to make magic work in fiction. Who is John Galt? He's fiction.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2024-July-28, 15:13, said:

I read Atlas Shrugged when I waa around 18 or 19. I outgrew it by 30. By 40, I couldn't believe that anyone but teenagers bought its arguments. It's easy to make magic work in fiction. Who is John Galt? He's fiction.

As mentioned above, maybe I once had a good memory. Now? Maybe not so much. But I do recall that Becky and I saw film 1 of the three part film version of Atlas Shrugged. Becky was looking forward to seeing it but after we saw film 1 we did not see film 2 of the three part series. Critics agreed with us.

Long ago, I cannot recall how long ago, I saw the film version of The Fountainhead.. I liked that. I often, not always, like Gary Cooper and I remember (I think) liking Patricia Neal. The Wikipedia article on the film is interesting. It got bad reviews when it opened in 1949 but views have changed. Here is an excerpt from the Wiki article:

Quote

While The Fountainhead opened to negative reviews upon initial release, the film has since been reappraised and received significantly more positive reception in the early years of the 21st century.

On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 83% based on 12 reviews, with an average rating of 7/10.^[26] Film critic Emanuel Levy described it as a "highly enjoyable, juicy Freudian melodrama", praising Vidor's technical virtuosity and imagery.^[27] Dave Kehr wrote "King Vidor turned Ayn Rand's preposterous 'philosophical' novel into one of his finest and most personal films, mainly by pushing the phallic imagery so hard that it surpasses Rand's rightist diatribes."

Anyway, I enjoyed iit, whatever the critics thought then or now. As to philosphy, well, I'll leave that for another day.

Just for a bit of politocal balance: The book club I belong to recently read Doppleganger. I have time to kill and it was a book club selection so I read it but I found it awful. Left wing or right wing, awful is awful.

[mycroft]

• Okay, I was wrong. Let's see if it works. Of course, now I want one of those "Don't Let the Old Man Win" shirts :-).
  
• "We followed the rules" has for the last decade at least been an immigration mantra of the right (even when their surname is Doyle or O'Connell, oddly enough). But there's two things here:
  • The rules have always (okay, since at least 1900) been different for certain immigrants than others (Chinese Exclusion Act, country immigration quotas, MS St. Louis, Operation W-b-k,...). Even Herr Berg might have found more trouble emigrating a decade or two later than 1910 for some reason.
    
  • It's a "pull the ladder up behind us" argument that they very carefully avoid talking about. It was easier to follow the rules (if you were European at least) in 1910 to immigrate than for a Canadian to get a work visa for two tendays a year now (no, no reason for that specific timing. Really). And getting a Green Card is even harder and more expensive than that. Very deliberately, too. If the people being complained about just had to follow the rules of a 1910 European now, there probably wouldn't be an issue (well, except for a *lot* more immigrants in general. And most of them suspiciously non-white. For the "children of immigrants" making this argument, that's either "a welcome, but never spoken, side-effect" or "the whole point").
  Ken, I know you're not that. But it's a dangerous argument to make, and 110 years of deliberate policy has made it worse. Same as the "I paid my way through university" argument that we both can make - because a semester's tuition was 20 tanks of gas, not 3-400, because (mostly) of government subsidy.
  
• Yes, I'm a non-local and therefore have no right to weigh in on US politics. Of course, when America sneezes, Canada (and Mexico) gets a cold, so there's that. And we have PP, our famous Anglo-that-insists-on-the-francophone-pronounciation (odd, that, given his opinions on some other languages) that is very likely to be our next PM due to exhaustion and no real other choice - who is already going to careen our country medium-hard MCGA, even if the Democrats win everything in November. And we have DS (who insists we use her preferred name while denying that right to others. Okay, and she's also a "anti-everything" mindless parrot, too. And...) as our premier, because FML. Again, she will just get more and more rabid (and have more and more Nauru-export ideas to glom onto) should the Republicans win. Sorry, I care.
  
• ObLink: "wikipedia" "John Rogers" "Orcs". Relevant aside, from my .sig quote file of many years ago (and from memory. I lost it in one of my moves), originally from the Monastery: "We knew it was wrong to burn books. So we shot them instead. For the record, I have evidence that it is about as hard for a .32 ACP to get through Battlefield Earth as a human reader."
  
• If the "grassroots" guy (I mean, it's basically a grass, right?) would just say something that proves that he knows anything about бридж Bridge, I might read his other stuff. Come on, just join one of the "Robots can't bid" threads with something relevant and not a copy-pasted smerriman reply from one of the other threads? I mean, it doesn't actually have to show skill or knowledge...

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2024-July-29, 11:10, said:

• Okay, I was wrong. Let's see if it works. Of course, now I want one of those "Don't Let the Old Man Win" shirts :-).
• "We followed the rules" has for the last decade at least been an immigration mantra of the right (even when their surname is Doyle or O'Connell, oddly enough). But there's two things here:
  • The rules have always (okay, since at least 1900) been different for certain immigrants than others (Chinese Exclusion Act, country immigration quotas, MS St. Louis, Operation W-b-k,...). Even Herr Berg might have found more trouble emigrating a decade or two later than 1910 for some reason.
  • It's a "pull the ladder up behind us" argument that they very carefully avoid talking about. It was easier to follow the rules (if you were European at least) in 1910 to immigrate than for a Canadian to get a work visa for two tendays a year now (no, no reason for that specific timing. Really). And getting a Green Card is even harder and more expensive than that. Very deliberately, too. If the people being complained about just had to follow the rules of a 1910 European now, there probably wouldn't be an issue (well, except for a *lot* more immigrants in general. And most of them suspiciously non-white. For the "children of immigrants" making this argument, that's either "a welcome, but never spoken, side-effect" or "the whole point").
  Ken, I know you're not that. But it's a dangerous argument to make, and 110 years of deliberate policy has made it worse. Same as the "I paid my way through university" argument that we both can make - because a semester's tuition was 20 tanks of gas, not 3-400, because (mostly) of government subsidy.
  
• Yes, I'm a non-local and therefore have no right to weigh in on US politics. Of course, when America sneezes, Canada (and Mexico) gets a cold, so there's that. And we have PP, our famous Anglo-that-insists-on-the-francophone-pronounciation (odd, that, given his opinions on some other languages) that is very likely to be our next PM due to exhaustion and no real other choice - who is already going to careen our country medium-hard MCGA, even if the Democrats win everything in November. And we have DS (who insists we use her preferred name while denying that right to others. Okay, and she's also a "anti-everything" mindless parrot, too. And...) as our premier, because FML. Again, she will just get more and more rabid (and have more and more Nauru-export ideas to glom onto) should the Republicans win. Sorry, I care.
• ObLink: "wikipedia" "John Rogers" "Orcs". Relevant aside, from my .sig quote file of many years ago (and from memory. I lost it in one of my moves), originally from the Monastery: "We knew it was wrong to burn books. So we shot them instead. For the record, I have evidence that it is about as hard for a .32 ACP to get through Battlefield Earth as a human reader."
• If the "grassroots" guy (I mean, it's basically a grass, right?) would just say something that proves that he knows anything about бридж Bridge, I might read his other stuff. Come on, just join one of the "Robots can't bid" threads with something relevant and not a copy-pasted smerriman reply from one of the other threads? I mean, it doesn't actually have to show skill or knowledge...

[kenberg]

I will start with a point of agreement. When I started at the University of Minnesota in 1956 the tuition was $72 a quarter and yes, that's about 40 tanks of gas. There are some added features, The website https://www.titlemax...hrough-history/ gives average gas prices over the years. For 1956 it said 30 cents a gallon. It converts this to a 2022 inflation adjusted price of $3.22 so the 2024 inflation adjusted price is probably very close to the $3.49 that I pay at the local Exxon. But then I recall that my 1947 Plymouth got, I think, something like 18 miles to the gallon while my 2013 Honda accord gets close to 30 mpg. So the gas price per mile has gone down considerably Btw, my Accord holds 5 people comfortably. My Plymouth, when I bought it in 1954, had what was called a shrapnel shelf instead of a back seat. I tore it out and bought a back seat at a junkyard for, I think, $25 and installed it somewhat loosely so we could double date. Of course this lower cost of gas per mile today has to be balanced off by the fact that people drive far more today than they did in the 50s. I was hitchhiking in 1952 and got a ride from a guy who lived 25 miles from where he worked. I told my friends about this astonishing act and they may have thought I was making it up..

But back to tuition. Yep, it's a lot higher. We need a solution.

I offer a story that I will use to contrast with the Student loan program. A couple we know had two daughters in college. Not Princeton but a pretty good place, Not outrageous but not cheap. They lived on campus. The daughters were getting a lot of Cs. The mother sat the daughters down and explained that it was costing a lot of money for this education and if all they were going to do was get a bunch of Cs then they could go to a much cheaper place and do that. The grades improved substantially.

Compare this with the student loan program. Yes, the student nust apply for the loan. But, on paper at least, it is a loan and so the psychology is apt to be like "Well, it's a loan, they will pay it back, why should I the loan evaluator complain about Cs?" And, very important, the person doing the evaluation is not lending their own money. The consequences should be 100% predictable, and they have happened, The students apply for loans, they get the loans, many make bad choices, often they do not finish and often those who do finish do so with a bad choice of major, lousy grades, very limited employment prospects, and large debt

I have seen it, I expect we all have. A true story: A guy likes video games ao he decides he will make his living designing video games, So he chooses a college that promotes such a major. Expensive,All applicants accepted. In his Freshman year he gets a bunch of Cs, runs up a big debt, and perhaps with strong parental encouragement, decides he can pretty much take the same courses, if he wants to at the community college. Of course the courses he took at this wonderful school in his Freshman year do not transfer.

This is anything but unique, And, as I say, totally predictable.

Of course I do not know the full solution, but the starting point has to be acknowledgement that the current student loan program was designed and is being administered by idiots.

[Al Phalpha]

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Pretty good advice as I see it.

[pilowsky]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-July-29, 18:08, said:

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Pretty good advice as I see it.

Quoting JFK?
So you've seen the light and decided to vote Democrat?

[kenberg]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-July-29, 18:08, said:

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Pretty good advice as I see it.

Well, maybwe, sorta. I think of it more as being greatful for the benfits of living here and wanting to make things good for others. If I wanted to just do something good for my country I should probably drop dead since I am getting good retirement payments and good health care coverage while not putting in a day's work in the last twelve years. But no, I plan to stick around.Someone has to post all these great ideas of mine on the WC.

[shyams]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-July-29, 18:08, said:

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Pretty good advice as I see it.

LOL this is funny because...
a. using the quote regardless of context is extremely silly; and
b. it is used to brainwash you all since the 60s because almost nobody can recall other lines from that speech.

[mycroft]

You know and I know that "tanks of gas" was just one indicator. I could have used food, or rent (which has also spiked pretty hard, just making things worse, but not compared to tuition). The base was "in your day, you could put yourself through college on a part-time job (maybe "and living at home"). In my day, I could, too (but probably couldn't eat as well, unless I was living at home). There are a lot of "two 'full-time' jobs' people that aren't making $50k for tuition, books, residence and food (and, of course, they wouldn't have time for classes).

Your argument is about Ivies vs local state/CC. And sure. But remember, "government subsidy", which has been going down. That $140/yr tuition you had (or the CAD 900/year I had in late 80s) is now over $17 000 for locals (my equivalent is CAD 11 000). My income over those years - counting experience raises as well - did a bit better than triple. I think entry-level is about double what it was in 1990. "Student jobs" rates sure didn't do much better, especially in the US with their "no min-wage adjustment" games (current "purchasing power" is lower than it has been since 1948, per wikipedia).

And of course, before my time, there were, shall we say, "other reasons" that it might have been easier for some people to [whatever] in the 1960s? Especially in the US?

Plus, capacity at university didn't keep up with demand, even in my day. Witness my uncle's (M.Sc Mech Eng, at the time CEO of business) comment to the dean of Engineering: "if entry levels were that high, I wouldn't have got in." Or the response: "Me neither". Also witness the jobs where a university degree - any university degree - is a prerequisite, like the one I currently have. I bet for several of those, CC just doesn't cut it. In the oil industry, there's still a limit to where you can go without the Iron Ring, even with 30 years experience. So, there's a hard ceiling if you're not willing to start your working life $100 000 out of pocket.

In short, beware all the people our age who say "I did...on my own", or "I (or my parents) just followed the rules". Check to see if there's a weight or two on the scale. Check to see what happens when you point them out. Those who truly hadn't noticed because it didn't affect them, and are willing to listen, it'll be obvious. Those that hadn't noticed because it didn't affect them, but aren't willing to listen, are the reason for "OK Boomer". Those that had noticed, but hoped *you* hadn't, I guess the polite(!) explanation is DDBB - "If you can't dazzle 'em with data, baffle 'em with..."

[mycroft]

Have just read the JFK inaugural address. LOTS of interesting lines there, given what we know now.

"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe–the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." Wow, the US is still so strong on that one, especially one side, yeppers.

"a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world." - in 1961, remember. Much of "this nation" spent much of that decade "unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which" their part of the nation "has always been committed", yep, for sure.

"To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny." Well, unless you thought you were free to vote for the wrong people, I guess...

"To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge: to convert our good words into good deeds in a new alliance for progress; to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house." Verrry Interesting. From elsewhere: 'In 1961, President John F. Kennedy ordered the school [of the Americas] to focus on teaching "anti-communist" counterinsurgency training to military personnel from Latin America. Broadly, the U.S. offered training to Latin Americans in riot and mob control, special warfare, jungle warfare, intelligence and counterintelligence, civil affairs, and public information. According to anthropologist Lesley Gill, the label "communist" was a “highly elastic category that could accommodate almost any critic of the status quo."'

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility; I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it–and the glow from that fire can truly light the world." Again, what have we learned in the last 60 years about how we "defended freedom in its hour of maximum danger"? And what "freedom" we were willing to accept, and what "freedom" was too far for "this Hemisphere"? And, of course, possibly how what we did for freedom translated into the 20-year-long (at least!) "immigrant problem" at the southern border?

And, of course, immediately after the famous quote everyone knows: "My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Yeah, that would be an interesting question to ask, both over the last 63 years and intentions going forward.

[shyams]

mycroft, on 2024-July-30, 10:54, said:

...[snip]...
And, of course, immediately after the famous quote everyone knows: "My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Yeah, that would be an interesting question to ask, both over the last 63 years and intentions going forward.

I think mycroft stopped one sentence too soon. The sentence that follows also should matter a lot (and perhaps be included everytime the famous sentence is quoted). It reads:

(Quote) Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. (End quote).
The President made a commitment on behalf of all political leaders that they all will maintain those high standards in return for your sacrifice. An integral part of the "deal", don't you think?

* Yet, for the last 25+ years, your leaders [regardless of party] have acted with utter disdain for standards.
* They sacrifice nothing and they rarely show strength [of morality, character, actions].
* I bet (didn't check) that nobody from your political or media establishments has ever mentioned the other sentence again. They made it vanish, probably because they don't like the implications.

I think your leaders think of themselves as "the country" referred to in JFKs quote. i.e. don't ask politicians to do anything for you, instead be clear that you must do things for your leaders.

[kenberg]

 kenberg, on 2024-July-29, 19:52, said:

Well, maybwe, sorta. I think of it more as being greatful for the benfits of living here and wanting to make things good for others. If I wanted to just do something good for my country I should probably drop dead since I am getting good retirement payments and good health care coverage while not putting in a day's work in the last twelve years. But no, I plan to stick around.Someone has to post all these great ideas of mine on the WC.

I am replyimg to myself to expand a little.

"Ask not ..." is idealism rather thab realism. I regard myself as a fairly decent person, but if someone thinks I shouold get up in the morning and ask myself "What can I do for my country today?" then I will disappoint them. I hardly think I am unique or even unusual. A couple of examples, no doubt I have mentioned them before.

1. I took a student deferment from the military so I could go to college and continued with the deferment in grad school. In 1966 they needed troops so my deferment was revoked, i took my physical and was re-classified 1A. I did not run off to Canada, I did not run down to the recuiting station and volunteer. I never got drafted, bur if I had been I would have gone. But volunteer? No way.

2. I took an early interest in mathematics and physics, encouraged by reading One Two Three Infinity when I was 13. I eventually got a Ph. D. in math. I never though for a moment about how I could use mathematics to better the nation or the world. I enjoyed math and I figured I could make a decent living at it so that's what I did.

The nation and the world is full of people who think largely as I do. We are looking for a good life and we do not wish to be harmful or evil I engaged in some typical adolescent nonsense when I was 16 or so, but I did not break into houses or steal thngs, just stupid prank stuff, stuff that got me detention at school or occasionally mild conflict with the law. I grew out of it. I recall with gratitude a cop once saying to me "Kind of old for this stuff, aren't you son?" i thought it over and decided he had a point.

Good goverrment intentions will work best if we take a realistic approach to what people are actually like. Most of us are not evil, or even all that selfish, but we do not wake up each morning tryiing to think of how we can best serve our fellow man.

Actually, if everyone started their day thinking how they could take good care of themselves and their family it would solve a lot of problems. And that would mske it easier to think of others.

Which brings another example to mind. My father once told me that when Pearl Harbor was bombed he considered enlisting. He was 41, I was approaching my third birthday, my mother explaned to him that while he was a bit old to be charging up a hill with backpack and gun he was still pretty useful at home. He took her advice.

[mycroft]

"Ask what you can do for your country". There is not a specific answer. Was a long-time professor, researcher and teacher of Mathematics in the early computer era better for America than another GI Joe (and whatever happened after, assuming there was an after)?

You are allowed to be selfish. You are allowed to do what's best for you. All you were being asked is "do what's best for you in the way that best supports the USA" rather than "do what's best for you, even if it harms the USA".

It doesn't have to be military. I would never have been a good fit in the military, even if I wasn't as clumsy and weak as someone 6' and 127# would be. I actively avoided *that side* of the cryptography ladder in my grad studies and future employment. I do think that I have been a net plus to Canada (even if monetarily, I probably haven't paid back the medical bills required to keep me alive and get me to 'plusable'). I do think I do what I can for Canada (even if a lot of it is vote against/rail against the Tories (or the worse-than-Tories, when they rise) in a hopeless cause).

And you can tell your cop story, again and again, to cops and to "law and order" Americans - because wasn't it better for America that it went that way rather than arrest, overnight in jail, student record, have to put it on every application from then on (including the one to the UofM) line that many people, then and now, that didn't look like you or me get? That, too, can be something you can "do for your country".