We should also not forget that part of the reason that the Islamofascists are enraged with us is because the West is destroying their culture and way of life, with America in the lead.
We don't mean to, but we are. They have a legitimate beef, although they're expressing it illegitimately and in a self-defeating manner, to say nothing of the fact that they're attacking the wrong parties.
If our modern western ways are more appealing than Islam, nothing short of the draconian oppression of NK, can stop people from voting with their feet and their treasure.
Because of the oil buried under the Middle East, a river of corrupting money flows through the heart of Islam, and due to the importance of that oil to the advanced nations, we meddle something fierce in their internal affairs. The Shah of Iran, the House of Sa'ūd, Israel, Lebanon...
...we need to oust the lefties in congress and get started building nuclear power stations and drilling for and refining our own oil. They've been forestalling this for 50 years.
While I don't believe that there was any kind of organized ultimate plan, the net effect has been that we're sucking dry all of the obvious resources of the Middle East, while keeping our own resources largely in reserve.
Not a horrible outcome, at least from our perspective.
O. Interesting take. We're saving our resources and using up the other guy's. Hadn't thought of it that way before. Hope you're right, but let's get rid of the lefties anyway.
If our modern western ways are more appealing than Islam, nothing short of the draconian oppression of NK, can stop people from voting with their feet and their treasure.
erp has it right. Even if there wasn't an ounce of oil under Saudi, the vast attitudinal differences between the West and Islam would still exist.
They have a beef, in that the West undermines the ability of some to dictate to the rest. Within the context of Islam, it is no doubt legitimate.
However, no matter what Allah may wish, Islam does not work. The conflict is the result of the cognitive dissonance between the perfect book that says one thing, and objective reality, which has concluded something else entirely.
Let us assume that what you say is the literal truth. Are we then to say that they ought not complain that we're disrupting their adequately-working systems and cultures, (regardless of how much we might hate to live under them), without addressing the problem of erecting new systems ?
Tearing down slums, without building new low-cost housing, does NOT help the downtrodden.
From a post at BorthersJudd Blog, public housing, like most public sector charity makes things worse, often much worse, not better which is why there are still people living in deplorable (by our standards) conditions after the tax payers have shelled out trillions of dollars for good works.
There is so much money involved that corruption is on such a grand scale, politicians, unions, and the rest of the usual leftie suspects have become rich beyond their wildest dreams. It's such a win/win situation. They actually get kudos for ripping us off and since their victims never rise above the "poverty level" which they set, their work is never done ergo the never ending lament that they need more and more money.
erp, I understand why you would want to stamp out corruption but where are the poor to live if the slums have been demolished and there is no public housing scheme? That's a genuine question, not a criticism: I know very little about American politics. I'm just wondering what policies there are for dealing with the situation.
I doubt there's a big difference in American and British corruption and politics. From what I know about council housing in the UK, it isn't very satisfactory either, but I am willing to be taught differently if I've gotten it wrong.
The slums as they were called were home to immigrants who were upwardly mobile from the bottom economically to wherever their wits and their abilities could take them. In fact, these areas went from predominantly Jewish, to Italian, to Irish, to Polish, to Puerto Rican .... As each group moved on and up, newer immigrants moved in.
The huge public housing projects in New York where I grew up and with which I am most familiar were instant slums without the charm of the hodge podge slums they replaced.
Few people here are permanent slum dwellers, except those pathetic souls who are kept in perpetual custodial care far worse slavery to provide the fodder for poverty pimps to extort more and more of the tax payer's hard earned money. However, it's they who benefit, not the downtrodden.
Check a link above to an article at the BrothersJudd blog shedding some more light on this subject.
There was a huge corruption scandal in Liverpool in 1986 but I think that the changes made since that emerged make local authority transactions far more transparent. I'm sure that doesn't make everyone squeaky clean but they are more accountable than in the past.
We don't have council houses per se any more. The days when local authorities owned good quality houses for people who could afford to rent but not buy started to decline when tenants were allowed to buy their houses very cheaply. The councils were not allowed to use the revenue from sales to build more houses, so now there is a system of Housing Associations. These are private companies, working with local councils to provide 'affordable housing' (strange term!) and houses for rent, which may be subsidised by the local council. There is a growing problem of young people, with quite decent income levels, not being able to afford to get started on owning or renting property.
Those at the very bottom of the social ladder, who cannot, or will not pay rent may be housed in bed and breakfast accommodation, hostels or on what have become known as 'sink estates.' Every town also has its share of homeless people who fall outside the welfare system altogether.
Please understand that I speak only of the able bodied and sound of mind. We will always need to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, but even this should be done at the local level. The widespread welfare programs that created a huge bureaucracy were the cause of much of the spirit of entitlements which drive me crazy.
Perhaps it isn't as bad in the UK. Here teenagers think they're entitled to whatever they want. When in reality they aren't entitled to anything except the rights they earn by behaving responsibly.
We create a dependent state of mind when we don't allow adults to fend for themselves. We feel guilty if some of us live better because we are more ambitious, have more energy or whatever and others are content with less.
I read somewhere that the notion of fairness and equality is nonsense. We are equal under the law as we should be. In all other things we're individuals.
Thanks for the clarification. I imagine things are pretty much the same in both countries - just on a different scale. We have people who expect something for nothing, or who cheat the welfare system.
13 comments:
We should also not forget that part of the reason that the Islamofascists are enraged with us is because the West is destroying their culture and way of life, with America in the lead.
We don't mean to, but we are. They have a legitimate beef, although they're expressing it illegitimately and in a self-defeating manner, to say nothing of the fact that they're attacking the wrong parties.
How a legitimate beef?
If our modern western ways are more appealing than Islam, nothing short of the draconian oppression of NK, can stop people from voting with their feet and their treasure.
Because of the oil buried under the Middle East, a river of corrupting money flows through the heart of Islam, and due to the importance of that oil to the advanced nations, we meddle something fierce in their internal affairs. The Shah of Iran, the House of Sa'ūd, Israel, Lebanon...
...we need to oust the lefties in congress and get started building nuclear power stations and drilling for and refining our own oil. They've been forestalling this for 50 years.
While I don't believe that there was any kind of organized ultimate plan, the net effect has been that we're sucking dry all of the obvious resources of the Middle East, while keeping our own resources largely in reserve.
Not a horrible outcome, at least from our perspective.
O. Interesting take. We're saving our resources and using up the other guy's. Hadn't thought of it that way before. Hope you're right, but let's get rid of the lefties anyway.
Oroborous:
If our modern western ways are more appealing than Islam, nothing short of the draconian oppression of NK, can stop people from voting with their feet and their treasure.
erp has it right. Even if there wasn't an ounce of oil under Saudi, the vast attitudinal differences between the West and Islam would still exist.
They have a beef, in that the West undermines the ability of some to dictate to the rest. Within the context of Islam, it is no doubt legitimate.
However, no matter what Allah may wish, Islam does not work. The conflict is the result of the cognitive dissonance between the perfect book that says one thing, and objective reality, which has concluded something else entirely.
Let us assume that what you say is the literal truth. Are we then to say that they ought not complain that we're disrupting their adequately-working systems and cultures, (regardless of how much we might hate to live under them), without addressing the problem of erecting new systems ?
Tearing down slums, without building new low-cost housing, does NOT help the downtrodden.
From a post at BorthersJudd Blog, public housing, like most public sector charity makes things worse, often much worse, not better which is why there are still people living in deplorable (by our standards) conditions after the tax payers have shelled out trillions of dollars for good works.
There is so much money involved that corruption is on such a grand scale, politicians, unions, and the rest of the usual leftie suspects have become rich beyond their wildest dreams. It's such a win/win situation. They actually get kudos for ripping us off and since their victims never rise above the "poverty level" which they set, their work is never done ergo the never ending lament that they need more and more money.
erp, I understand why you would want to stamp out corruption but where are the poor to live if the slums have been demolished and there is no public housing scheme? That's a genuine question, not a criticism: I know very little about American politics. I'm just wondering what policies there are for dealing with the situation.
I doubt there's a big difference in American and British corruption and politics. From what I know about council housing in the UK, it isn't very satisfactory either, but I am willing to be taught differently if I've gotten it wrong.
The slums as they were called were home to immigrants who were upwardly mobile from the bottom economically to wherever their wits and their abilities could take them. In fact, these areas went from predominantly Jewish, to Italian, to Irish, to Polish, to Puerto Rican .... As each group moved on and up, newer immigrants moved in.
The huge public housing projects in New York where I grew up and with which I am most familiar were instant slums without the charm of the hodge podge slums they replaced.
Few people here are permanent slum dwellers, except those pathetic souls who are kept in perpetual custodial care far worse slavery to provide the fodder for poverty pimps to extort more and more of the tax payer's hard earned money. However, it's they who benefit, not the downtrodden.
Check a link above to an article at the BrothersJudd blog shedding some more light on this subject.
Hands off is the best policy.
There was a huge corruption scandal in Liverpool in 1986 but I think that the changes made since that emerged make local authority transactions far more transparent. I'm sure that doesn't make everyone squeaky clean but they are more accountable than in the past.
We don't have council houses per se any more. The days when local authorities owned good quality houses for people who could afford to rent but not buy started to decline when tenants were allowed to buy their houses very cheaply. The councils were not allowed to use the revenue from sales to build more houses, so now there is a system of Housing Associations. These are private companies, working with local councils to provide 'affordable housing' (strange term!) and houses for rent, which may be subsidised by the local council. There is a growing problem of young people, with quite decent income levels, not being able to afford to get started on owning or renting property.
Those at the very bottom of the social ladder, who cannot, or will not pay rent may be housed in bed and breakfast accommodation, hostels or on what have become known as 'sink estates.' Every town also has its share of homeless people who fall outside the welfare system altogether.
Please understand that I speak only of the able bodied and sound of mind. We will always need to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, but even this should be done at the local level. The widespread welfare programs that created a huge bureaucracy were the cause of much of the spirit of entitlements which drive me crazy.
Perhaps it isn't as bad in the UK. Here teenagers think they're entitled to whatever they want. When in reality they aren't entitled to anything except the rights they earn by behaving responsibly.
We create a dependent state of mind when we don't allow adults to fend for themselves. We feel guilty if some of us live better because we are more ambitious, have more energy or whatever and others are content with less.
I read somewhere that the notion of fairness and equality is nonsense. We are equal under the law as we should be. In all other things we're individuals.
Thanks for the clarification. I imagine things are pretty much the same in both countries - just on a different scale. We have people who expect something for nothing, or who cheat the welfare system.
Post a Comment