Barlow essay on Burning Man and Schwartzenegger

All things outside of Burning Man.
Post Reply
User avatar
PJ
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: Colorado, The Other Rectangular State

Post by PJ » Sun Nov 02, 2003 7:32 pm

abeerinthemorning wrote:...he will fail to be a solution because he will lie through his teeth.
I wonder if there has ever been a politician that didn't lie? Many of the best lied reflexively no matter what question was being asked, and switched to telling the truth half way through their statement having realized that there was no disadvantage to telling the truth in that particular instance. I suspect that any that didn't lie to the voters were probably lying to themselves.
abeerinthemorning wrote:...he smiles at his rivals, as he crushes their spirit.
Don't forget: "...see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women." (Conan the Barbarian's reply to the question, "What is best in life?")

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Sun Nov 02, 2003 8:58 pm

aforceforgood wrote:So he gets no credit from you for making an obvious good investment? And it does differentiate him from your typical hollywood actor whose idea of fiscal responsibility is to either blow $$ on parties, boob jobs, things to put up their nose, or a huge mansion.
No, despite your assertions, I don't think it makes him particularly suited to be the executive head of the world's 5th largest economy because he made an obvious good investment. As for parties, boob jobs, and fiscal responsibility, -why does he need 5 Hummers again?
aforceforgood wrote:There's lots of mexican people who favor their kids being taught english too so they can get ahead in the US business world, but they don't get any press. In fact, opposition to this typically comes from those who have entrenched interest in mexicans staying illiterate and poor-Bustamante and the owner of Univision (Spanish language TV channel) are two who spring to mind.
US English was not about encouraging immigrants to learn English, it was about disenfranchising those that didn't. English only ballots and school curriculum is a great way to keep non-English speakers illiterate and poor. It's totally ridiculous of you to portray US English as a populist Mexican movement being subverted by a cabal of Mexican elites keeping their countrymen monolingual.
aforceforgood wrote:I think your definition is self-serving and flawed. But to answer your question, I think Arnold will press for environmentally sound policies, yes, especially if he's pressed to by people.
I disagree that it is self-serving, just as I disagree that Arnold is an environmentalist because he will be forced to respond when "pressed to by people." Arnold will make choices in office, and only if he chooses environmentally sound policies when he *isn't* forced to will he be an environmentalist. By your definition any company or political bent can be considered environmentalist.
Last edited by Don Muerto on Sun Nov 02, 2003 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Sun Nov 02, 2003 8:59 pm

PJ wrote: "...see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women."
Ah, that probably was the best part in the movie. Well, either that or when he yells:

"DEN TO HELL WITCHU KROM!!"

Kinda reminds you of Mayfield...
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

rogue agent
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 5:40 pm

Post by rogue agent » Sun Nov 02, 2003 9:55 pm

Kinetic II wrote:Rapidly dwindling? I don't have cites in front of me but the last set of articles I read that covered the Russian reserves indicates we ahve another 200 years worth of petroleum that we can access NOW.
That's wildly optimistic beyond even the wildly optimistic Bush administration's estimates, and that's saying something. OK, by the numbers:

Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil. This is the total amount of oil that was ever inside the Earth. 1.8-2.2 trillion barrels is the generally agreed range for EUR. USGS is currently claiming 3 trillion, but they arrive at that by asserting without evidence that Reserve Growth (currently known oilfields that turn out to have more than estimated) can account for 800+ billion extra barrels. As of the end of 2002, we'd used up 940 billion barrels of that total, leaving 860 billion-1.2 trillion barrels in the ground right now. Globally we produce & use around 27 billion barrels a year.

What it all boils down to is, if EUR is 1.8T, we'll hit Peak Oil (maximum volume per year) production in 2007. If it's 2.2, we hit it around 2012; 2.6 only pushes it off to 2019.

Now that's just Peak, not down to the last drop (which is several decades away at current usage levels). But it's all downhill from there. If all that hasn't made you more than a little nervous yet, here's a recent quote from the President of ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Jon Thompson:
Our industry can certainly be proud of its past achievements. Yet the challenges we will face in the coming years will be every bit as great as those encountered in the past, due in part to ever-increasing global energy use. For example, we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing fields is declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected demand in 2015, the industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a day of new production. That’s equal to about 80 percent of today’s production level. In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what industry is now spending.

Equally daunting is the fact that many of the most promising prospects are far from major markets — some in regions that lack even basic infrastructure. Others are in extreme climates, such as the Arctic, that present extraordinary technical challenges.
If you want to read some of the research that supports these numbers, you can go to:

http://www.peakoil.net/Default.htm
http://www.ems.org/oil_depletion/story.html
http://www.wri.org/climate/jm_oil_001.html

If you wanna know what I think all this War on Terror crap is about, I'm guessing there's a major unspoken strategic objective, namely putting our pieces in place for Endgame so we can keep getting our fix when everybody wakes up to what the situation really is. It's Easter Island all over again, this time on a global scale.

RA
Last edited by rogue agent on Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kinetic II

Post by Kinetic II » Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:06 pm

That's the sort of stuff I was thinking of but obviously I had my numbers off. There's a lot of good information in there and I understand ExxonMobil's concern. Damn, that's some serious demand he's talking there.

However I wonder about the costs of exploration part. I know the cost is going to go up, and the technical challenges are immense. But the oil industry is known for engineering structures and systems that can make the impossible, possible. As I write this I'm thinking of the deep sea oil platforms that as technical and structural engineering techniques progress, will make once inaccessible fields open up. In other words, they are going to go deeper and as computing / analysis power increases, they will find more fields. Granted I'm being optimistic but a quick review of current history will show that progress has been substantial over the past 50 years, I see no reason why it won't continue.

So after blasting that boring comment out, I'm going to go back and take another look at those links. There's some good info in there. Thanks.

rogue agent
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 5:40 pm

Post by rogue agent » Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:11 pm

Kinetic II wrote:There's some good info in there. Thanks.
We haven't even touched on the other 3 items on my list yet. I'll let you absorb this first though, we'll hit them later.

RA

Kinetic II

Post by Kinetic II » Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:12 pm

I almost forgot....I don't care what Arnold's personal vehicles are. If he's not in a Hummer, now he gets a limo and motorcade which isn't that much better on helping the environment. IMHO, if he can bring in funding for transit issues and keep the busses and rail systems running or help expand them, if he can continue Davis's push to get more powerplants online that are not coal fired, then he's on his way.

I really think all this "I'm going to do this or do that" crap is going to hit a brick wall, ie: the State Legislature. Arnold doesn't have the power to rule by decree, he can bring in all the advisors in America and even an Indian guru or two and it won't mean a damn thing if the legislature balks. He'll get quite a bit of what he wants, but he's going to get his ego bruised along the way. Yes, even the tough guys have an ego, and it does get burned every so often. He'll learn. I give him 2 weeks into the next legislative session before he hits the wall.

rogue agent
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 5:40 pm

Post by rogue agent » Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:40 pm

Kinetic II wrote:I almost forgot....I don't care what Arnold's personal vehicles are.
It's a minor point for me too, just underscoring the shallowness of his convictions.
I really think all this "I'm going to do this or do that" crap is going to hit a brick wall, ie: the State Legislature.
He's got a bigger wall than the Lege to get over. California's voters have, over the years, used the Proposition process to create a situation mandating expenditures and limiting taxes in such a bewildering combination that it's nearly impossible to satisfy them all, let alone try to make any changes to the whole mess. It's just about all untouchable, one way or another. He's in for a rough ride, even in a Hummer.

I thank God every day that I'm not Californian, & I'm an athiest.

RA

User avatar
diane o'thirst
Posts: 2092
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: Eugene, OR
Contact:

Post by diane o'thirst » Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:49 am

PJ wrote:I wonder if there has ever been a politician that didn't lie? Many of the best lied reflexively no matter what question was being asked, and switched to telling the truth half way through their statement having realized that there was no disadvantage to telling the truth in that particular instance. I suspect that any that didn't lie to the voters were probably lying to themselves.
"A lie is best hidden between two truths." <i>— a quote from a <b>Vampire:the Masquerade</b> sourcebook chapter heading that I don't have immediately to hand</i>
[url=http://tinyurl.com/245sagf][img]http://tinyurl.com/2bbr28j/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/23753ws][img]http://tinyurl.com/2auqebj/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/m4y82q][img]http://tinyurl.com/l56rdn/.gif[/img][/url]

blyslv
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

Post by blyslv » Mon Nov 03, 2003 7:22 am

PJ wrote:All the grousing about the comparative environmental benign-ness of automobiles directly powered by a supply of petroleum they carry, or by electricity no matter where it's generated (even by hitherto-undemonstrated tankered fuels such as hydrogen) is moot.

Crude oil sells for between $20US/bbl and $30US/bbl. It rarely spikes above that point as the Saudis have determined empirically that to be the pain point above which US consumers begin conserving.

This post brings me back to Stu's point about not externalizing costs. What we pay the oil companies does not account for the true cost of a petro based economy.
Fight for the fifth freedom!

blyslv
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

Post by blyslv » Mon Nov 03, 2003 7:27 am

PJ wrote:[ But unlike a Hummer nobody ever got laid because they drive a minivan.
Yeah, well, sounds like somebody ALREADY got laid...
Fight for the fifth freedom!

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:00 am

blyslv wrote:This post brings me back to Stu's point about not externalizing costs. What we pay the oil companies does not account for the true cost of a petro based economy.
Bingo
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

User avatar
aforceforgood
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by aforceforgood » Mon Nov 03, 2003 9:44 am

Don Muerto wrote:
aforceforgood wrote:There's lots of mexican people who favor their kids being taught english too so they can get ahead in the US business world, but they don't get any press. In fact, opposition to this typically comes from those who have entrenched interest in mexicans staying illiterate and poor-Bustamante and the owner of Univision (Spanish language TV channel) are two who spring to mind.
US English was not about encouraging immigrants to learn English, it was about disenfranchising those that didn't. English only ballots and school curriculum is a great way to keep non-English speakers illiterate and poor. It's totally ridiculous of you to portray US English as a populist Mexican movement being subverted by a cabal of Mexican elites keeping their countrymen monolingual.
It may seem ridiculous to you that someone would seek to repress their "fellow man", but unfortunately, it's true. Those who benefit from keeping immigrants weak don't have altruism in their hearts, they don't see people as people, they just see a wallet and a vote.

Ask yourself this; what benefit is there to having multilingualism? or is it just a way for these people to be enabled to not have to expend the effort to learn english? I'm sure you're aware of how destructive an ENABLER is to an alcoholic. Without someone to support them, call in sick for them, etc., they might not sink so low into their destructive disease. Why people can't see the same thing happening with multilingualism is beyond me.
Don Muerto wrote:
aforceforgood wrote:I think your definition is self-serving and flawed. But to answer your question, I think Arnold will press for environmentally sound policies, yes, especially if he's pressed to by people.
I disagree that it is self-serving, just as I disagree that Arnold is an environmentalist because he will be forced to respond when "pressed to by people." Arnold will make choices in office, and only if he chooses environmentally sound policies when he *isn't* forced to will he be an environmentalist. By your definition any company or political bent can be considered environmentalist.
So you think the answer is to elect a representative who agrees with you, what, 99.999245563% of the time? Or is 95% percent good enough? 83%? Good luck with that viewpoint, you're well down the road to mad science and feeding your own skin shavings/DNA to your sea monkeys to try and grow a politician you can feel good about.

Isn't it good enough if he passes legislation that we want? Or does he have to personally agree with it? What does that matter? So we don't have to keep talking to him, letting him know what kind of leadership we want to see? Sorry, all people in leadership will go astray without the active voice of the governed giving them feedback.

In other words, I don't believe a damned word he said during the election race, I'm waiting to see what he DOES, even while I give him credit for being smart enough to run a race in the way he could win. I expect he will govern the same way, doing what works. And I also suspect he has little interest in governing the way we've seen it done in the past- namely, bureaucratic station keeping/babysitting/pandering/least offensive decision tree leadership- I sense an ambition to make a serious improvement in the way California's government handles it's affairs, and to make major changes in the very structure of the way we see politics and government.

Ok, I know that last bit's wildly optimistic, but I can dream, can't I?

Counterpoint- either that, or Arnold's the hand-picked replacement to continue giving us bread and circuses while bleeding us for tax dollars...

User avatar
diane o'thirst
Posts: 2092
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: Eugene, OR
Contact:

Post by diane o'thirst » Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:25 am

aforceforgood wrote:Ask yourself this; what benefit is there to having multilingualism?
Uhmm, exercising of the brain cells and synapses — there's a truism that states that you should never stop learning. It's also been said that the best and fastest way to learn and understand a culture is to learn their language. And of course, understanding leads to respect and this is how we initiate friendships. Friendship = no war.

Also, Guttenberg might have a thing or three to say about a literate populace. Illiteracy propped up the Mediaevel caste system/institution of slaver...uhmm, errrrr, ahhhhhh, serfdom. The printing press took literacy out of the hands of the priveleged few and spread it to the common folk, which led to free thought and free speech. Therefore it could be argued that literacy and multilingualism are the twin pillars of freedom.
I'm sure you're aware of how destructive an ENABLER is to an alcoholic.
My friend, there is an earthshakingly MAJOR, significant and categorical difference between being saddled with a genetic disease and not being able to read! If you believe nothing else, trust me that far. You're comparing oranges and mirrors.
[url=http://tinyurl.com/245sagf][img]http://tinyurl.com/2bbr28j/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/23753ws][img]http://tinyurl.com/2auqebj/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/m4y82q][img]http://tinyurl.com/l56rdn/.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
aforceforgood
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by aforceforgood » Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:34 am

diane o'thirst wrote:
aforceforgood wrote:I'm sure you're aware of how destructive an ENABLER is to an alcoholic.
My friend, there is an earthshakingly MAJOR, significant and categorical difference between being saddled with a genetic disease and not being able to read! If you believe nothing else, trust me that far. You're comparing oranges and mirrors.
Of course there is a major difference, but enablers are the point. There are enablers of many kinds of weaknesses, not just for alcoholics. Hmm, there's an interesting thought- I think I will meditate today on enabled weaknesses... And nothing is so corrupting as convenience. If it's more convenient to not learn english because there are multilingual signs everywhere, translators, etc., immigrants are less likely to learn english, fostering the divisions we see now.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:43 am

If it's more convenient to not learn english because there are multilingual signs everywhere, translators, etc., immigrants are less likely to learn english, fostering the divisions we see now.
I think you answered your own question Force. It goes both/all ways.

not learning other languages leaves one in the dark. to a certain extent. that's why the U.S. is at war. Too lazy to learn other languages other than english.
even though...........

User avatar
aforceforgood
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by aforceforgood » Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:50 am

Look, I am learning spanish, ok, but what am I supposed to do, learn the 50 other languages of all the other immigrants who come here too, or should it be their responsibility to learn english?

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:50 am

I'd be willing to pillory someone for driving such a resource hog if there was a clean option available.
I believe most BMWs are ULEV vehicles. Also, he could get his hands on a 750fuel cell hybrid that would come from the factory with the 'protection' package (run flat tires, bulletproofing, satellite phone, etc., etc.). They might help him get laid too.

For the uber rediculous, there is also the porsche cayenne. I believe it was Britains 'Car' magazine cover that said '160mph in the worlds most rediculous SUV' or something like that.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:11 am

aforceforgood wrote:Look, I am learning spanish, ok, but what am I supposed to do, learn the 50 other languages of all the other immigrants who come here too, or should it be their responsibility to learn english?
IMHO Everybody should learn everybody's language. there is no language better than the other. I find that the same can be said for programming languages. True, some perfer Mac ove PC, and others Unix/linux over all, but I see it all as a computer is a computer is a computer. It's a little extra effort but well worth it in the long run and makes love go a long way.

after all it's all about love.
even though...........

User avatar
diane o'thirst
Posts: 2092
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: Eugene, OR
Contact:

Post by diane o'thirst » Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:13 am

aforceforgood wrote:And nothing is so corrupting as convenience. If it's more convenient to not learn english because there are multilingual signs everywhere, translators, etc., immigrants are less likely to learn english, fostering the divisions we see now.
Okay, I see your point. Literacy is a big hot button with me. The fact that in some parts of California — okay, <i>a lot</i> — if you don't speak Spanish you're straight-up TSOL. I forget which comedian came up with the line, "In an effort to get closer to 'the people,' the President of Mexico has relocated the country's capitol to Los Angeles."

Personally, what I'd like to see happen is the INS scoop up fence-jumpers and say, "Okay, we're going to give you a choice. Either we send you back down to Mexico, or you can come over to this wing here, we'll walk you through the process and you can apply for citizenship and go legit. That way you won't have to spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder, you'll never have to deal with the Coyotes again, and you won't have to keep going through this whole illegal immigration border-sneaking rigamarole — what say?"

Right — cue the long posts about how that's a simplistic, reactionary and exploitative solution that'd never work in a million years...
[url=http://tinyurl.com/245sagf][img]http://tinyurl.com/2bbr28j/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/23753ws][img]http://tinyurl.com/2auqebj/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/m4y82q][img]http://tinyurl.com/l56rdn/.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
diane o'thirst
Posts: 2092
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: Eugene, OR
Contact:

Post by diane o'thirst » Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:28 am

DE FACTO wrote:IMHO Everybody should learn everybody's language. there is no language better than the other.
Well, that's a little hard to do. Not enough hours in the day and so forth. If we existed in an Aeternal Now and were functionally in a state of eternal youth, you BET I'd be all over that. I'd be out there learning as much as I can! :)
(Which is why I'm not going to have my ashes thrown into the Ganga at Varanasi — thanks Shiva, there's too much of this world I still want to explore!)
after all it's all about love.
Got it in one, sonny! :) We're a social species. War has its moments but at the end of the day it is a cultural aberration.
[url=http://tinyurl.com/245sagf][img]http://tinyurl.com/2bbr28j/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/23753ws][img]http://tinyurl.com/2auqebj/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/m4y82q][img]http://tinyurl.com/l56rdn/.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
aforceforgood
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by aforceforgood » Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:14 pm

diane o'thirst wrote:Personally, what I'd like to see happen is the INS scoop up fence-jumpers and say, "Okay, we're going to give you a choice. Either we send you back down to Mexico, or you can come over to this wing here, we'll walk you through the process and you can apply for citizenship and go legit. That way you won't have to spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder, you'll never have to deal with the Coyotes again, and you won't have to keep going through this whole illegal immigration border-sneaking rigamarole — what say?"

Right — cue the long posts about how that's a simplistic, reactionary and exploitative solution that'd never work in a million years...
That is a remarkably practical and commonsense suggestion. Thus, it will never be done. Also, in the minds of those who've never had to deal with the idiocy and insanity that is bureaucracy, it doesn't *punish* those committing the crime of wanting a better life enough.

Also, most of those crossing over from Mexico would not qualify to come over since they're basically economic refugees. You've all heard my points about how we can only absorb a finite number of these per year, so I won't reiterate them here. If you haven't, here's a link; http://oldbbs.burningman.com/index.cgi? ... .eee06eb/0

It gets around to immigration issues, and a lot of other stuff. Think of it as a FAQ. Don't worry, it's got a lot of humor in it, it's not as dry as your typical FAQ.

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:02 pm

Funny thing is that there is a distinct difference between the illegal immigrants coming across the border nowadays, and those past. My grandparents came over from Italy/Sicily and learned English. Matter of fact, they made it a point to quit speaking Italian. The mindset back then was, now they are here- they are Americans and they will learn the language and ways of their new land. More of an effort was made to become part of the culture. When I lived in Southern Ca, I was privy to the "Spanish as a primary language" push in the LA area.

Rather than the immigrants learn our ways when they join our culture, we should force the American people to learn their culture? Why just the Mexican population? Why not force our kids to learn the cultures of all other countries and the respective languages? Isn't it being unfair to the other immigrants when we don't establish seperate schools and neighborhoods so that those immigrants never have to fully mesh with our culture? Or wait... Isn't that basically segregation?

Call me a cold hearted bastard, but when in Rome yadda yadda yadda. You decided to become Americans. Great. Learn our language and culture. If I ever move to Europe, you bet I'll make all efforts to adapt.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

User avatar
Patience
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 10:52 am
Location: Ess Eff
Contact:

Post by Patience » Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:11 pm

I don't think that supporting English as the official U.S. language is anti-immigrant, provided that in making that change proper systems are in place to educate immigrants and help them learn the language and make the transition. In theory, US English's mission is not anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic.

Of course, the group's founder, John Tanton, has founded or helped found at least 13 anti-immigration groups, three of which are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. (source: Washington Post)

And when its president, Linda Chavez resigned after discovering a racist, anti-hispanic and anti-catholic memorandum written and circulated by Tanton, almost the entire board of directors followed suit. I find it highly suspect that Arnold did not resign, and don't buy the suggestion that he might not have been aware of the contraversy. I knew about it, and I am not a member of US English.

Further, prop. 187, which Arnold supported, was decidedly anti-immigrant and blatantly unconstitutional (later affirmed by a federal court that dismissed the proposition on that basis). One of its provisions denied, among other public services, public education to the children of illegal aliens.

All indications are that Schwarzenegger is anti-immigrant. Since he has refused to comment on any of this, it's hard to say for sure. But herein lies the rub:

We don't know shit about his politics or his ability to govern. So how the hell could any responsible person vote for him???? All we know about him is that he makes a pretty kick-ass robot from the future, despite the fact that he's a mediocre actor.

So while the negative things I have gleaned about him don't necessarily condemn him, the fact is that we don't have any more reason to vote for him than, say, my dad. Now, I love my dad. I bet my dad would make a kick-ass robot from the future as well. But I wouldn't vote for him because, like Arnold, he is not fucking qualified to run the state's economy.
Last edited by Patience on Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's not that I hate you. It's just that I'm a much better person than you.

Guest

ahnuld

Post by Guest » Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:11 pm

Does anyone else think the references to the governor as "ahnuld" are borderline racist?

The governator - that's funny. But making fun of someone's accent, isn't that opposite what the whold damn country is supposed to be about?

It's fine on SNL, or in the funny pages, but I'm reading it in the news section. Seems fucked up.

User avatar
Isotopia
Posts: 2847
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:26 am

Post by Isotopia » Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:21 pm

but I'm reading it in the news section. Seems fucked up.
Although I can read such things and chuckle the fact that you're reading it in the news section is just another indication of the media's (seeming) loss of objectivity. On that level it SUCKS no matter where you fit in the political spectrum.

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Mon Nov 03, 2003 9:21 pm

aforceforgood wrote:It may seem ridiculous to you that someone would seek to repress their "fellow man", but unfortunately, it's true. Those who benefit from keeping immigrants weak don't have altruism in their hearts, they don't see people as people, they just see a wallet and a vote.
Right! We *are* talking about US English right?
aforceforgood wrote:Ask yourself this; what benefit is there to having multilingualism? or is it just a way for these people to be enabled to not have to expend the effort to learn english? I'm sure you're aware of how destructive an ENABLER is to an alcoholic. Without someone to support them, call in sick for them, etc., they might not sink so low into their destructive disease. Why people can't see the same thing happening with multilingualism is beyond me.
I guess the short answer is because it *isn't* happening. Not speaking English in America is not a destructive disease.

*Some* of the benefits of multilingualism are that marginalized voices are heard in the electoral process, those that are not bilingual have the infrastructure to become so, and the culture that comes with the language is added to, and enhances, our own.
aforceforgood wrote:So you think the answer is to elect a representative who agrees with you, what, 99.999245563% of the time? Or is 95% percent good enough? 83%? Good luck with that viewpoint, you're well down the road to mad science and feeding your own skin shavings/DNA to your sea monkeys to try and grow a politician you can feel good about.
Uh yeah. When I said that Arnie should be held accountable for the label he is using to sell himself, what I *meant* was that my project of growing sea-monkey politicians that share 99.999245563% of my political DNA was nearing fruition. Pass me that glue when you are done.
aforceforgood wrote:Isn't it good enough if he passes legislation that we want? Or does he have to personally agree with it? What does that matter? So we don't have to keep talking to him, letting him know what kind of leadership we want to see? Sorry, all people in leadership will go astray without the active voice of the governed giving them feedback.
I would settle for him passing environmental legislation that he doesn't believe in, but it *does* matter.
aforceforgood wrote:Ok, I know that last bit's wildly optimistic, but I can dream, can't I?
I hope you are right, but I am not holding my breath. I don't expect business as usual either. I think the GOP will use his star power to try and extend their regressive social and economic policies to CA.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

User avatar
aforceforgood
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: ahnuld

Post by aforceforgood » Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:45 pm

abeerinthemorning wrote:Does anyone else think the references to the governor as "ahnuld" are borderline racist?

The governator - that's funny. But making fun of someone's accent, isn't that opposite what the whold damn country is supposed to be about?

It's fine on SNL, or in the funny pages, but I'm reading it in the news section. Seems fucked up.
Isotopia wrote:
but I'm reading it in the news section. Seems fucked up.
Although I can read such things and chuckle the fact that you're reading it in the news section is just another indication of the media's (seeming) loss of objectivity. On that level it SUCKS no matter where you fit in the political spectrum.
Our so-called "news" sources' professionalism has dropped in quality dramatically over the course of many years. No one outside of the US takes US-based news seriously. Least of all TV news. That shit is fucking info-tainment at BEST. I've watched over the years with growing uneasiness as semi-respectable newscasters who could at least be taken somewhat seriously as journalists get replaced by tanned, bleached FUCKTARDS who think they're funny. Look, I'm not saying we're being taken over by the fucking flying saucer men, but there's something sinister going on there. I can remember about 10-15 years ago flipping channels to the various news shows, and they would be covering the EXACT same stories, at the EXACT SAME TIME. And I'm not talking just generally the same time, they would do 15 seconds on suzy so-and-so was kidnapped, then 30 seconds on the air traffic controller strike, and then 45 seconds on some wierd story that was supposed to show that they were really digging for news, that they were so a real news agency. It wasn't just the major nationwide stories. And the newscasts were IDENTICAL, down to the second. Different newscasters, slightly different phrasing, but obviously the same. So don't even try and tell me our news isn't managed. Now I suspect they don't even have to manage it, just employ frigging morons who don't have the faintest clue about journalism, verifying facts, etc., but just report whatever the gummint tells em like good little propagandists, cuz gosh, they wouldn't lie to us, right?
Don Muerto wrote:
aforceforgood wrote:It may seem ridiculous to you that someone would seek to repress their "fellow man", but unfortunately, it's true. Those who benefit from keeping immigrants weak don't have altruism in their hearts, they don't see people as people, they just see a wallet and a vote.
Right! We *are* talking about US English right?
Ok, you're baiting me, ha ha, but seriously, pray tell me how being taught english hurts immigrants?

User avatar
diane o'thirst
Posts: 2092
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: Eugene, OR
Contact:

Re: ahnuld

Post by diane o'thirst » Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:25 am

aforceforgood wrote:but seriously, pray tell me how being taught english hurts immigrants?
<b><u>NOTHING,</b></u> and that was my point when I first replied to the question of bilingualism.

I got into it with someone who was <i>way</i> lefter than I am (I'm only slightly less left than Gandhi, according to that poll). We started talking about the illegal immigration problem and I posited the same theory I gave above, the one about the INS agents scooping them up and filing them into a wing where social workers were waiting to shepherd them through the citizenship process. My "opponent" (in a debate sense) countered, "What if they can't read?"

I said, "They can hang around until they learn how." He countered that English is an incredibly difficult language to pick up, one of the hardest, and takes years and years to master. I said they don't have to master the English language in all its nuances, just Spanish enough to get them through the citizenship process, and once they're in and legit then they can learn English like everyone else had to.

He said, "What if they don't WANT TO learn English?"

I said, "Come on, once you're literate the sky's the limit! Why wouldn't they want to learn the lingua franca?" (another nice example of American English's cosmopolitan nature :)) And I said if our ancestors didn't want to learn English when they came here he and I wouldn't be having this discussion (I'm descended from German immigrants, he was Irish).

He came back with his big paranoid leftist guns and thought he'd shot me down for keeps, playing the race card. He said that I was racist for making the Mexican fence-hoppers learn American English instead of respecting their native tongue. I sighed and rolled my eyes and did the "Okay, FINE! Forget I said anything!" and it fizzled out.
[url=http://tinyurl.com/245sagf][img]http://tinyurl.com/2bbr28j/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/23753ws][img]http://tinyurl.com/2auqebj/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/m4y82q][img]http://tinyurl.com/l56rdn/.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
aforceforgood
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:49 pm

"RESPECTING" their native tongue-WTF does [i]that

Post by aforceforgood » Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:49 am

Well, actually, that question was directed at Don Muerto, since he's kindly adopted the devil's advocate position in this little debate- (or maybe, duh, I just realized that Don Muerto could be hispanic or latino or whatever the fock the PC term is today, maybe Don is hisplachicatino) and just to head off the "Well, forcing them to learn english is destroying the mexican culture!" argument before that shit even gets started, I wanna say this before I forget it;

If your culture is so fucking weak that learning english can kill it then it deserves to die. (copyright2003)

Ahh, I feel better now.

And anyways, if your freakin culture is so great, then what're you doing here? Yeah, yeah, I know, economics, and you know, I like a lot about latino culture, their strong family ties, passion, etc., but I think you see my point.

Ok, I'd like to add another question- re; "RESPECTING" (or disrespecting, whatever) their native tongue-WTF does that mean? Or is it just one of those stupid slogans that get tossed around that have no real meaning, but can be used against anyone who dares mention that teaching people english might be a good idea? since it does mean nothing, people feel free to just rip that one out there without fear of having to explain it because it's unexplainable? And unassailable since no one fucking knows what it means to disrespect someone's tongue, so if a mexican says you're doing that, well, then, I guess you just are.

If we say that immigrants should learn the language of the land we're racists or something? Huh? Why?

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”