A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

[geezer]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

His level of arrogance is off the charts.

wait, aren't you from Minnesota? That should be a positive

I can understand the personal dislike, and how those impressions can vary. But I was really curious if Kepler's comment about Mitt and Paris coming from wealth and both failing at life had any other measures to it besides likeability/popularity.

[FreshFish]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Have any of you guys watched the Mitt campaign documentary? Any other opinions on him as a human being?

While I have not seen the Romney documentary, I'd like to some day. I've heard that the filmmakers had unusually good access for a movie of that type, and that they were fairly even-handed in letting the facts speak for themselves.

The first time I had heard of Mitt Romney was in 1998 or 1999. We lived in the southwest corner of Wyoming at that time, probably 45 minute drive from Park City, Utah. The Salt Lake City Olympics were heading toward major debacle / huge embarrassment meltdown. He was asked to step in, and he accepted, taking $1 in salary for his work. The transformation of that enterprise was truly extraordinary. For those who had not heard of him before, the general consensus was "wow, how did they find this guy? what an amazing job he did!"

Then to learn later that he had renounced his family's fortune upon graduating from college, determined to make his "own" way (yeah, the naysayers will say that even without his father's money he still had his dad's name and connections....).

[geezer]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

While I have not seen the Romney documentary, I'd like to some day.

I have to admit I haven't seen it either. I only read a favorable review in a very liberal magazine that said if he had acted like himself during the campaign instead of acting like an actor playing a politician, he probably would have won in a landslide. The value of being genuine. For the reviewer, anyway, it totally changed her opinion of Mitt.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I have to admit I haven't seen it either. I only read a favorable review in a very liberal magazine that said if he had acted like himself during the campaign instead of acting like an actor playing a politician, he probably would have won in a landslide. The value of being genuine. For the reviewer, anyway, it totally changed her opinion of Mitt.

That's funny cause I knew exactly who he was and what my opinion of him was when he said that Corporations are people.

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

This is exactly what I would have expected from you two, who know much less about me than you pretend to, but I was asking Kepler. I was surprised by his equating Mitt Romney with Paris Hilton in life outcomes.

I was comparing Mitt and Paris in the following way: both grew up so privileged it evidently made it impossible for them to understand people outside their circumstances. Paris is obvious -- life is one long party. Mitt is less obvious but way worse -- wealth is theological election; those with wealth are by definition fit to rule; the habits and mores of the wealthy are both signs and means of superiority. He channels the 19th century robber baron pseudo-philosophy of William Graham Sumner's "What the Social Classes Owe Each Other" (spoiler: the answer is "nothing") and basks in von Misean bromides of laissez-faire utopia. He, and his peers, are untouched by the suffering caused by their philosophies because they are committed to abstractions that have been rebutted in practice for hundreds of years. Like Bolsheviks, the ideal is all -- the path to paradise may be strewn with corpses but everyone is better off in the long run. Their insouciance is unshakable, and many look up to them, mistaking as sanguine what is merely idle detachment.

There is a special circle of hell reserved for the rich man who calls the poor man greedy. Even if he does it just to brace himself against his conscience and shut out the cries of suffering around him, because he's too lazy and too self-absorbed to do anything about it, it is still one of the last mortal sins.

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I was comparing Mitt and Paris in the following way: both grew up so privileged it evidently made it impossible for them to understand people outside their circumstances. Paris is obvious -- life is one long party. Mitt is less obvious but way worse -- wealth is theological election; those with wealth are by definition fit to rule; the habits and mores of the wealthy are both signs and means of superiority. He channels the 19th century robber baron pseudo-philosophy of William Graham Sumner's "What the Social Classes Owe Each Other" (spoiler: the answer is "nothing") and basks in von Misean bromides of laissez-faire utopia. He, and his peers, are completely untouched by the actual suffering caused by their philosophies because they are completely committed to abstractions that have been rebutted in practice for hundreds of years. Like Bolsheviks, the ideal is all -- the path to paradise may be strewn with corpses but everyone is better off in the long run. Their insouciance is unshakable, and many look up to them, mistaking as sanguine what is merely idle detachment.

There is a special circle of hell reserved for the rich man who calls the poor man greedy. Even if he does it just to brace himself against his conscience and shut out the cries of suffering around him, because he's too lazy and too self-absorbed to do anything about it, it is still one of the last mortal sins.

You put people in boxes way too easily. And of course it's always the rich Republican who is decried, not the rich liberal or Hollywood celebrity who suffers every bit as much from what you describe. Your comments would hold a lot more water if they dropped the partisan sheen.

[geezer]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Mitt is less obvious but way worse -- wealth is theological election

thank you sir, for the well-expressed opinion. Do you see religion, or Mormonism particularly, playing a part in this attitude as the "theological election" would suggest?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

You put people in boxes way too easily. And of course it's always the rich Republican who is decried, not the rich liberal or Hollywood celebrity who suffers every bit as much from what you describe. Your comments would hold a lot more water if they dropped the partisan sheen.

Oh, really?

Which Hollywood Hippy type is calling poor people greedy? Not anyone I can think of. Mitt did it every day of his campaign. Mitch and Boner do it every day on Capitol Hill.

[geezer]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Oh, really?

Which Hollywood Hippy type is calling poor people greedy? Not anyone I can think of. Mitt did it every day of his campaign. Mitch and Boner do it every day on Capitol Hill.

well, it's also true... they're just not as greedy as the rich people.

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Your comments would hold a lot more water if they dropped the partisan sheen.

When the policies of the two parties diverge so dramatically concerning opportunity and equality, that partisanship is unavoidable. But it isn't causal, it's driven from objectively considering the practical effects of the parties' stances. The GOP has done everything it could for 30 years to drive up wealth inequality. Maybe a handful of them, in the beginning, actually thought this would raise all boats, but that's been revealed as fiction for a least half that time.

From comments you've made in the past I know you identify lack of opportunity as a critical problem. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't see -- clearly -- that on this issue you are backing the wrong horse. Even taking all the other stuff, the conservative social values, the fear of government, all that, as read, at the end of the day the Dems are the party that gives more people a shot at the American dream. I'm not saying your other allegiances might not outweigh that consideration, but the parties and their philosophies are intertwined with considerations of improving the material conditions of the least among us.

[FreshFish]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Oh, really?

Which Hollywood Hippy type is calling poor people greedy? Not anyone I can think of. Mitt did it every day of his campaign. Mitch and Boner do it every day on Capitol Hill.

All people are "greedy." It's just that, most of the time, we use a far less pejorative word to describe the same fundamental human impulse.

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

thank you sir, for the well-expressed opinion. Do you see religion, or Mormonism particularly, playing a part in this attitude as the "theological election" would suggest?

It might factor in (Weber thought so) but I tend to think the arrows run the other way: everybody always creates a narrative where they, purely by accident you understand, just happen to be morally superior. Wealthy people have been historically excellent at convincing themselves that wealth comes to them as a sign of divine approval, but wide receivers think it's true when they score, too.

Wealth isn't anything special as far as producing stupider, nastier humans -- those are distributed evenly throughout the population. Wealth does have the disadvantage of feeding our natural tendencies to justify our privileges as earned rather than accidental, and wealth also comes with an enormous arsenal of self-justifying fictions (there are dozens of "Think Tanks" that do nothing but churn them out around the clock). And because people tend to associate with people like themselves, wealthy people (like anybody else) suffer from epistemic closure where the opinions and approval that circulate around them reinforce those tendencies.

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

When the policies of the two parties diverge so dramatically concerning opportunity and equality, that partisanship is unavoidable. But it isn't causal, it's driven from objectively considering the practical effects of the parties' stances. The GOP has done everything it could for 30 years to drive up wealth inequality. Maybe a handful of them, in the beginning, actually thought this would raise all boats, but that's been revealed as fiction for a least half that time.

From comments you've made in the past I know you identify lack of opportunity as a critical problem. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't see -- clearly -- that on this issue you are backing the wrong horse. Even taking all the other stuff, the conservative social values, the fear of government, all that, as read, at the end of the day the Dems are the party that gives more people a shot at the American dream. I'm not saying your other allegiances might not outweigh that consideration, but the parties and their philosophies are intertwined with considerations of improving the material conditions of the least among us.

My point is that the ills of greed and lack of caring for your fellow man know no partisan boundaries. Does George Soros or all the super rich liberal folks do anything more for their fellow man than rich conservatives? I doubt it. Actually, from what I've read about Romney, he does a good bit of charity work and such, but that stuff (shockingly) never got meda play during the campaign.

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

My point is that the ills of greed and lack of caring for your fellow man know no partisan boundaries. Does George Soros or all the super rich liberal folks do anything more for their fellow man than rich conservatives? I doubt it. Actually, from what I've read about Romney, he does a good bit of charity work and such, but that stuff (shockingly) never got meda play during the campaign.

I bet as private individuals it's a wash -- there's no reason to believe conservatism or liberalism drive private charity. But policy is where the real progress (or lack of it) is made, and on that conservatives are at best taking a holiday from responsibility.

[ScoobyDoo]

All people are "greedy." It's just that, most of the time, we use a far less pejorative word to describe the same fundamental human impulse.

Yeah, there's so little difference between the 2nd billion and having enough to eat and being able to see a doctor.

My bad.