patrick.net

God forbid anyone should ask the question, "What are human beings FOR?" in a political discussion. I don't mean religiously or morally, but physically: what are people good for when it comes to the future of the universe?
All of the other issues are simply distractions from the uncomfortable fact that we don't want to ask this question because we would be ashamed of how we actually behave as a species. Nobody in the public eye is offering a path that doesn't involve a personal profit rather than a useful, sustainable future. Everything on offer is simply various ways of consuming the future to shut people up for the time being. Nobody needs a 'job', cheap oil, less government or more government. They need food, shelter, clean air and water, etc, but most of all, they need to be useful and connected to their own future (and we cannot separate our future from the future of our environment). "Freedom" and "taxes" and "education" all seem to be detached subjects, concerned with maintaining some indirect System of systems that none of us actually control. The word "security" is used when we are really talking about "comfort."
Meanwhile, here's a talking point for both sides: "If socialized medicine is good enough for the troops, it's good enough for everyone." Oh yeah, and "One dollar, one vote. If you want Change, keep it in your pocket."

HousingWatcher says

Great post. One thing I notice is that Republicans are much more disciplined and have better talking points... like when they say "Job Creators."

Democrats suck at talking points. For instance, they should have NEVER used the words "single payer" or "public option." They should have instead said "Medicare for all" or "Medicare buy in."

Yeah. It's easier to stay on topic when you don't have anything else in your head to distract you. ;-)

Being simple is sometimes better. Knowing the difference between simple and stupid (or eclectic and distracted) is the crux. Sounding "focused and determined" often leads to "rigid and unbending." Sounding "educated and experienced" often leads to "elitist." This is generally why the guy that wins is usually the one that looks best on TV.

I don't know about you but when I say "Indian" these days I mean someone from Asia.
"Native American" seems to be the only logical way to describe such any more. More a side effect of Columbus being an idiot than anything else.

Auntiegrav says

If socialized medicine is good enough for the troops, it's good enough for everyone.

Excellent point.

Auntiegrav says

One dollar, one vote. If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.

I don't quite get that one. We do have a system where money gets to make laws, but you don't actually want to keep that, right?

Olaf says

I don't know about you but when I say "Indian" these days I mean someone from Asia.

"Native American" seems to be the only logical way to describe such any more. More a side effect of Columbus being an idiot than anything else.

When I grew up, Indian was unambiguous because there were almost no Asian Indians around. And even now, the context is usually enough to distinguish. If not, I just say "from India" rather than Indian, as in "He's from India."

Calling the occupy movement people idiots and bumbs gets a few ugly comments from democrats and liberal types. It easy to start argument.

As someone who doesn't care about political correctness, I'll take a stab at each of these. My responses in blue.

On the left, you may not say:

Islam is an extremely violent religion, and Mohammed raped, robbed, and murdered.

There were times when Islam, Christianity, and Judaism each were religions, but like all religions they grew and fragmented into separate religions. Now, each is a family of religions. Islamic religions, like Christian ones, vary in how violent they are. However, almost all of the are violent to a large extent. What the Koran says is irrelevant. All that matters is what the followers do. Most forms of Islam are empirically violent.

As for Mohamed, I haven't heard anything about him robbing, raping, and murdering people. What I read is that Mohamed married a rich widow and wasn't satisfied with how easy his life was. So he made up a religion to make himself feel more important. He copied the two most popular religions of the time, Christianity and Judaism, and got his friends and family members to support this religion. In other words, Mohamed was no different than Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard. Given 700 more years, Scientologists may be flying planes into buildings.

Abortion is obviously murder when the fetus can do things like distinguish its mother's voice from other voices, for example.

Yes, abortion eventually becomes murder. Few people are in favor of abortion a day before the expected delivery. However, abortion at conception is not murder. The dirty little secret about abortion that neither side is willing to talk about, is that it is an inherently grey area because a preborn offspring gradually becomes a person. I'll discuss that in more detail in its own thread when time permits.

Black fathers often don't hang around, and black kids often shun anyone who does well in school for "acting white".

I don't know much about demographics and family statistics, but I have read in many journals that single mothers is the new norm for American families. I've read that it started in poor, black neighborhoods, but now encompasses all groups. I've even read that sperm banks have a shortage of donors because so many single women over 30 are deciding to have children before getting married. Given these statistics and the nature of peer pressure, I don't find the above statement a stretch.

AIDS was spread mostly by promiscuous anal intercourse between men.

Yes, the mechanics of man on man sex allows for greater risk of transmission of HIV when not using a condom. And AIDS, like all sexually transmitted diseases relies on polygamous sexual activity to continue existing. [Note: Serial monogamy is polygamy.]

However, this does not imply that polygamy is immoral. Some diseases are airborne. That does not make breathing immoral. Perhaps if people stopped placing moral judgments on homosexual behavior, the taboo of discussing the details of disease transmission would cease to exist.

It's silly to say "African American", "Native American", "visually impaired", and "Happy Holidays" when everyone knows you mean "black", "Indian", "blind", and "Merry Christmas".

It's silly to use any code word or euphemism. That said, not all these terms are code words. African American means "black American" not "black". A black Englishman isn't an African American. So if you are talking about social or economic differences affected on race in America, it makes sense to say African American.

When people say "Happy Holidays" they don't mean "Merry Christmas". I don't know about you, but I can't tell who's Jewish and who's not just by looking at them. That alone justifies a more generic greeting. I don't want to have to memorize which religion every single person in the office subscribes to just so I can use the appropriate greeting. "Happy Holidays" covers everything, even secularists like me. And no, I don't take offense if someone says "merry Christmas" to me. I also don't take offense if you wish me a happy winter solstice.

On the right, you may not say:

The ultra-low 15% capital gains and dividend tax rate is a giant giveaway to the rich at the expense of the 99%.

True, and that's the whole point.

We don't like Obama mostly because he's black and has a Muslim name, not because of anything he has actually done.

Black, Muslim name, and Democrat. Yeah, Obama is pretty much the poster boy for family values. His daughters aren't whores like Bush's kids. He's been faithful to his wife unlike any Republican. And his policies are pretty much everything the Republicans wanted in the 1990s.

However, I still think that Democrat is what really crawls up their asses the most. After all, the conservatives hated Clinton, too. And he was a red neck!

Obamacare was created from Republican healthcare proposals, but because Obama got it passed, we hate it.

Absolutely. The Republicans have made it well known that they will actively sabotage the country to make Obama look bad and lose the next election. Well, they succeeded in sabotaging the country, but Obama's still going to get elected.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there were no weapons of mass destruction. We should not be there.

Completely true on both counts. And this destroyed American's credibility and thus has made it much harder for us to secure a peaceful world in the long run.

The US has a much higher level of gun violence than other countries largely because of the NRA.

I don't know if it’s the NRA's fault. I think America has a violent culture compared to most of western Europe. But places like Switzerland have very few restrictions on guns and very high gun ownership levels, yet little violence. It reminds me of the story below.

Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."

The Swiss militia army consists primarily of an infantry of the armed populace, but also includes modern artillery – some of which is hidden in Alpine fortifications – and fighter jets. As for terrorism, depending on the circumstances, a vigilant and armed populace may be instrumental in stopping a massacre. If terrorist acts occur on Swiss soil, the citizenry will resist however possible.

I think America's gun problem has more to do with our culture than access to arms. And I say that not being a gun person myself. But when the evidence contradicts your gut feelings, you got to go with the evidence.

Now, there are a few things that were not mentioned, but should be.

The left refuses to admit that men and women are different and that each gender has advantages for some mental tasks. When the Harvard University president said that innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers, he was wrongfully persecuted by the left and the media.

The fact is that men compartmentalize which is a damn useful mental ability when dealing with math, physics, computer engineering, software engineering, and similar sciences and engineering disciplines. Women do the opposite, which is useful in language skills, biology, and ecology. It's a tradeoff. And it's biological. Of course, some men will excel in ecology and some women in physics, but statistically the difference is explained perfectly by the differences in the male and female brain. To deny this is both irrational and disingenuous.

Furthermore, if you actually care about the young women learning math in school, then you should praise that Harvard president for having the courage to bring this problem to light. After all, you cannot solve a problem until you acknowledge its existence.

The left often does harm by religiously adopting political correctness over truth.

The right, however, has its own religious dogma that ignores the facts.

The right will never admit that the people who have obscene amounts of wealth did not earn or produce that wealth, but rather siphoned it from those who did. What's obscene? Yatch Transportation Services that transport your yacht to where you want to sail it so that you don't have to sail it to there.

The right also will not admit that no company is going to hire people simply because their after-tax profits are high. Companies only hire people when they have to in order to increase profits. Taxes, or the lack thereof, do not change this.

beershrine says

Calling the occupy movement people idiots and bumbs gets a few ugly comments from democrats and liberal types. It easy to start argument.

True, it's easy to start an argument.

However, it's also true that OWS and The Tea Party are both composed of idiots.

I waited to see if OWS would actually accomplish something, but it hasn't. Their only strategy is to get arrested, and quite frankly, that is dumb. If anything, their lining themselves up for the slaughter makes things worse because now the police have president to pepper spray everyone and physically assault them. Way to go OWS!

We could discuss why OWS is a failure in great detail, but I think we can summarize it like this. OWS acted on the assumption that merely getting attention would be sufficient to generate change. Obviously, this is not the case. You have to have a specific list of changes, codify in proposed bills that you want passed and you have to convince the voters to recall any politician that isn't on your side.

Dan8267 says

The right will never admit that the people who have obscene amounts of wealth did not earn or produce that wealth, but rather siphoned it from those who did. What's obscene? Yatch Transportation Services that transport your yacht to where you want to sail it so that you don't have to sail it to there.

That's something I have never seen before. I did do something close to that once. I needed a new car and, at the same time, was going on vacation to Florida. So I flew down there, bought my car, drove it instead of a rental, and then flew back up to NY while my car was trucked back to my house.

The US has a much higher level of gun violence than other countries largely because of the NRA.

Actually, this is wrong on two counts. as Dan provided an excellent counter example.

First, on the right, it's not true that you can't dis the NRA. What you can't say is, "The US has a much higher level of gun violence."

Second, the reason for the higher gun violence is actually fairly well understood: The War on Drugs. If you remove drug-related violence of all kinds from the statistics of the US and of other first world countries, the remaining US violent crime levels, including gun crimes, are right in line or actually a little better than most other countries. And in the US, the incentives for the police to keep the War on Drugs violent have been extremely high. Until a few years ago, the War on Drugs provided almost all of the justification behind police funding levels, creation of SWAT teams in pretty much every police department in the land, etc.

Now, the War on Terror provides it's own support for large, well equipped police departments, so it will be curious to see what kind of an effect that has on the War on Drugs and the consequential drug-related violence.

HousingWatcher says

So I flew down there, bought my car, drove it instead of a rental, and then flew back up to NY while my car was trucked back to my house.

Not quite the same thing.

grendel says

And in the US, the incentives for the police to keep the War on Drugs violent have been extremely high.

Good point. When I think of the rise of gun violence in the U.S., I think of the 1960s when drug usage and crackdown took off, and the 1970s when drug usage and narcotic raids were at a peak. Since the 1990s, this has been down as has gun violence.

You can also look at Mexico as an example of this. Violence is at an all-time high because of the drug trade.

Finally, prior to the 1960s, the level of gun violence last peaked during Prohibition and for pretty much the same reason.

That said, I think there is also something else to the Swiss culture that's different from ours. I've never heard of a Swiss gang banger. And the Swiss don't glorify violence and fire arms like we do. They seem more respectful and restraint in their usage of arms even though, or maybe because, gun ownership is an integral part of their culture.

Dan8267 says

As for Mohamed, I haven't heard anything about him robbing, raping, and murdering people.

That's official Islamic history. Look up his caravan raids, sex with Safiya on the same day after he killed her father and brother, marriage to a 6-year old, but waiting till she was 9 to deflower her, the murder of Abu Afak for writing a poem mocking Mohammed, and then the murder of a pregnant woman who wrote a poem about the previous murder. And the wholesale massacre of all the men of Banu Qurayzah after they surrendered. It just goes on and on.

My point is that the actions of the "role model for all of humanity" can very easily be used to justify violence. Much more so than Jesus, who didn't rob, rape, or kill anyone according to official history.

But it's not politically correct to say any of this.

Dan8267 says

I can't tell who's Jewish and who's not just by looking at them. That alone justifies a more generic greeting.

The generic greeting feels very forced and tightly constrained to me. I think the right thing to do would be for non-Christians to simply accept the expression of goodwill inherent in "Merry Christmas", which was basically the same winter solstice holday as Hanukkah before the religious overlay anyway. And Hanukkah is about the massacre of assimilated Greek-speaking Jews by the more conservative faction of Jews. So that holiday itself is about violently enforced orthodoxy. Not a happy holiday, but it's not PC to point that out.

Dan8267 says

The left refuses to admit that men and women are different and that each gender has advantages for some mental tasks.

Yes, I agree, andnot just mental tasks. I got dissed once just for pointing out that ALL of the top weight-lifters are men, and that that is simply biological. There are clear biological non-reproductive differences between men and women, but it's just not PC on the left to admit that.

grendel says

Second, the reason for the higher gun violence is actually fairly well understood: The War on Drugs.

OK, yes, that is a more accurate way to put it. But one reason the US is awash in guns is the NRA.

I think the right thing to do would be for non-Christians to simply accept the expression of goodwill inherent in "Merry Christmas", which was basically the same winter solstice holday as Hanukkah before the religious overlay anyway.

Then let's just all wish each other Happy Solstice! It's the original holiday, and that way I don't need to keep track of who's what. Besides, I actually do celebrate the solstices. Although, I prefer the summer one.

I rank the sun holidays in this order: spring equinox, summer solstice, winter solstice, fall equinox.

And Hanukkah is about the massacre of assimilated Greek-speaking Jews by the more conservative faction of Jews.

I thought it was the festival of lights. You know when you smoke your marawanika.

I got dissed once just for pointing out that ALL of the top weight-lifters are men, and that that is simply biological.

This reminds me of a day in class back in college. Some female liberal arts professor asks the class if it was ok for women to be body builders. Then for some reason she looked at me and asked what my opinion was. I said, "Sure if they want to be, but why would they? Female body builders are repulsive." She then said, "oh, but male body builders are attractive?".

I replied, "No, men with muscles are also ugly. The sexiest male physique is that of a 19-year-old computer programmer." For some reason, the entire class started laughing.

That's official Islamic history. Look up his caravan raids, sex with Safiya on the same day after he killed her father and brother, marriage to a 6-year old, but waiting till she was 9 to deflower her, the murder of Abu Afak for writing a poem mocking

Although this is the first I've heard about it, I'm not surprised. Things like this rarely get mentioned. Plus, it is consistent with the general culture of the ancient Middle East (and modern to some extent). This is just more reason why we shouldn't keep propagating those middle Eastern religions through the generations.

Nobody says anything bad about the Celtic Earth-based religions. Gaia is a lot nicer than those desert gods. Plus, forest orgy!

I vote we muzzle the underclass with actual muzzles. The underclass has the superhuman ability to not shut the fuck up. The underclass needs to get back to work and stop bleating on about politics. My golf clubs aren't going to spit shine themselves.

I'll add one unspoken truth held by both the right and left: the rich are better than you.

Dan8267 says

lining themselves up for the slaughter makes things worse because now the police have president to pepper spray everyone and physically assault them. Way to go OWS!

I feel that way about every hair brained, half baked, liberal gripe in the last ten years. The Republicans have taken every war horse the Liberals have rode around on, tore off the horsey stick and Ass fucked our constitution with it.

They are great at creating agendas, they just suck at accomplishing anything. And then we all end up worse off for it.

The Republicans... well they are republicans, always have been and always will be. Take them for what they are worth, their resolve never wavers.

It's hard to tell what in the hell the Democrats want, or to what end, they are willing to go, to get there.

The generic greeting feels very forced and tightly constrained to me. I think the right thing to do would be for non-Christians to simply accept the expression of goodwill inherent in "Merry Christmas", which was basically the same winter solstice holday as Hanukkah before the religious overlay anyway.

Yeah, but as a non-christian saying "Merry Christmas" feels silly and forced to me. I don't mind it though when others use that phrase though.

I think that the right thing to do would be for christians to realize that they are going to have to listen to a lot of other saying, "Happy Holidays", etc. That and non-christians not worrying so much about having to hear "Merry Christmas" during the holiday season.

The GOP says

I feel that way about every hair brained, half baked, liberal gripe in the last ten years.

The question is, what exactly constitutes a hair-brained, half-backed, liberal gripe? I think that few people could agree on that.

The GOP says

The Republicans have taken every war horse the Liberals have rode around on, tore off the horsey stick and Ass fucked our constitution with it.

Are you Sean Penn? Or are you just one of the students in his Metaphor Writing class?

The GOP says

The Republicans... well they are republicans, always have been and always will be. Take them for what they are worth, their resolve never wavers.

Yes, but the Republicans consistently lie about what they are for. They look after the interest of the rich, but still need the votes of the other 99.9% to stay in power. So they have to lie about everything.

The GOP says

It's hard to tell what in the hell the Democrats want, or to what end, they are willing to go, to get there.

The problem with the Democrats is that because the Republicans only represent the richest 0.1%, just about everybody else is stuck in the Democratic party. So, it's in effect, not even a political party.

Democrats can't agree on anything because they are made up of everybody. There is no commonality other than not being part of the ruling class.

leoj707 says

That and non-christians not worrying so much about having to hear "Merry Christmas" during the holiday season.

I stop listening to radio, except for NPR, as soon as Thanksgiving comes because I'm sick of all the Christmas music. I've had enough of it for one lifetime. Even the country music station plays it.

On the right, you may not say:
* * * * *
● The US has a much higher level of gun violence than other countries largely because of the NRA.

I think that as pointed out by others in this thread the level of gun violence is probably caused by other factors not related to the number of guns in the US.

That said the Right does seem to have a disconnect with the realities and responsibilities of gun ownership.

As far as guns go it seems to be forbidden on the right to say:
● Gun control is necessary to assure that only responsible people own guns; gun ownership is indeed dangerous and only those properly trained should own guns

FYI, the NRA gives great classes on gun safety.

leoj707 says

I think that as pointed out by others in this thread the level of gun violence is probably caused by other factors not related to the number of guns in the US.

This thread has gotten me thinking about the whole gun issue and why I'd feel safer in Switzerland with everyone packing, but not in D.C. or Texas where everyone is also packing.

To the Swiss, gun ownership is a civil duty meant to protect people from the state and from invaders. In America, gun ownership is about who's dick is the biggest. American gun owners are macho assholes who think the bigger their gun, the more manly they are. And, of course, this makes our culture more violent. And that's what really different between us and the Swiss.

We glorify gun violence, whereas the Swiss treat gun ownership and usage with a measure of restraint and responsibility that is lacking in our culture. Maybe it's because Swiss men have huge dicks and don't need to compensate.

Dan8267 says

Yes, but the Republicans consistently lie about what they are for.

No they don't

Republicans want to drill in all of the wet lands, consolidate every free-market opportunity to the stewardship of a few corporate entities with no bid cony government contracts. They have clear concise ideas on how to achieve their corporate masters bidding, and don't waver from it. They present it as it is, still they stay their course.

Liberals want to give Free Healthcare, Hope and Change.
What we end up with is mandated insurance, with premiums already 60% higher than before Obama "FIXED SHIT".
Republicans are soldiering along with Fracking, Pipelines, Wetland extraction, deep well drilling, the list goes on. They didn't op for the Booby Prize.

The GOP says

consolidate every free-market opportunity to the stewardship of a few corporate entities with no bid cony government contracts.

Hence, my point. A free market cannot be consolidated and would not have no-bid government contracts.

My favorite 'forbidden speech' is that instead of saying 'we gotta live near a school with white/asian kids' they say 'Must find good schools or they mention TEST SCORES all the time' so they can maintain liberal PC status while driving a prius to the exclusive white/asian schools.

Tes Scores is code word.

Dan8267 says

When the Harvard University president said that innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers, he was wrongfully persecuted by the left and the media.

The danger in statements like this, as carefully as they might be made, is that we've come from a recent past society which so degraded the life of women that even a suggestion that women are somehow inferior to me might be a continued participation in that past society. Plus, we know very little about the brain, gender, and genetics. Give it another thousand years or so.

Abortion is obviously murder when the fetus can do things like distinguish its mother's voice from other voices, for example.

Is the reason for outlawing murder in society the effect it has on those still living? If so, it would be an interesting and difficult study to compare the effects of abortion and murder on family and friends.

Murder isn't just stopping a heartbeat, right?

Embarrassed to just blab here, because I haven't done much study in this area, but have often thought about my left-biased views on abortion. I've been recognizing my bias for human life in recent years which is a fairly basic challenge to many beliefs. Does a surviving, nearly aborted fetus grow to a more negative consequence on society than those living with the abortion?

FunTime says

The danger in statements like this, as carefully as they might be made, is that we've come from a recent past society which so degraded the life of women that even a suggestion that women are somehow inferior to me might be a continued participation in that past society. Plus, we know very little about the brain, gender, and genetics. Give it another thousand years or so.

You cannot avoid the possibility that people with deliberately misinterpret your statements by hiding the truth. Only full transparency and complete honesty can counter the tactics of the unethical.

Telling lies to counter other people's lies is a fool's errand. And attacking the truth bringers is unethical even if you are well-intended.

it sounds like basically you are saying that societal rules were created for women to follow -- the men writing the rules of course had the best interests of the women at heart -- because if they did not follow the rules men would banish and/or kill them.

As a college student in the late 80s I was blown away by the total inability of some of my otherwise intelligent female friends to consider that gender roles everywhere on the planet must have evolved for reasons of survival, and that even 100 years earlier most of the limitations that they blamed on men were really determined by the physical facts of life. It was only the technological advancements brought about by ("evil") masculine industry that allowed women to make new choices-- stuff like safe and effective birth control, paved roads, cars, machines that life heavy objects, and everything else that reduces our dependence on muscle power to survive. Of course you always had some small minority of women who might have been strong enough to plow a field or fell a tree, and perhaps you even have had those mythical herbal abortions available from the priestess as I saw in some romantic feministic movie once-- but these must have been quite the exceptions, and the limits of life were more fixed in nature than the flexibility that technology now permits.

So at this point women appear to have more life role options than men ("get a job or go to prison, dude"), and women have become the majority of college graduates etc. And the persisting feminists-- those who never got beyond the self help anger venting of their college courses-- take credit for this yet refuse to give up the victim status, because to do so would necessarily point toward the fact that they are irrelevant. Interestingly we may begin to see a decline in the life span of women who opt for more high stress, traditionally masculine roles.

it sounds like basically you are saying that societal rules were created for women to follow -- the men writing the rules of course had the best interests of the women at heart -- because if they did not follow the rules men would banish and/or kill them.

As a college student in the late 80s I was blown away by the total inability of some of my otherwise intelligent female friends to consider that gender roles everywhere on the planet must have evolved for reasons of survival, and that even 100 years earlier most of the limitations that they blamed on men were really determined by the physical facts of life. It was only the technological advancements brought about by ("evil") masculine industry that allowed women to make new choices-- stuff like safe and effective birth control, paved roads, cars, machines that life heavy objects, and everything else that reduces our dependence on muscle power to survive. Of course you always had some small minority of women who might have been strong enough to plow a field or fell a tree, and perhaps you even have had those mythical herbal abortions available from the priestess as I saw in some romantic feministic movie once-- but these must have been quite the exceptions, and the limits of life were more fixed in nature than the flexibility that technology now permits.

So at this point women appear to have more life role options than men ("get a job or go to prison, dude"), and women have become the majority of college graduates etc. And the persisting feminists-- those who never got beyond the self help anger venting of their college courses-- take credit for this yet refuse to give up their victim status, because to do so would necessarily point toward the fact that their ideology is irrelevant. Interestingly we may begin to see a decline in the life span of women who opt for more high stress, traditionally masculine roles.

Dan8267 says

African American means "black American" not "black". A black Englishman isn't an African American. So if you are talking about social or economic differences affected on race in America, it makes sense to say African American.

Eh....not exactly. I've met many people from Cape Verde and Haiti that would be prefered to be called Cape Verdian or Haitian rather than African American since they did not come from Africa. More importantly not everyone from Africa is actually black. North African is largely arab and actually included as "white" in official affirmative action forms. Kinda reminds me that as of yet I haven't met anyone black from south africa.

Dan8267 says

Indian does not mean Native American. Indians live in India. Native Americans are descendant from the tribes that lived in America for thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

While that might make sense now what about the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the 70's? American Indian makes more sense than Native American because the continent is the Americas and there were natives all over the place. Tribal differences varied dramatically (just look up Incans and Mayans). To lump all natives together is insulting to some.

It is hard for some to tell differences off the bat with groups. Before I went to China I assumed they'd be all the same more or less but there are actually significant ethnic differences in the country and the currency has about five different languages on it.

If you want to read a book about some of the differences of development of women I'd highly recommend William Easterly's White Man's Burden (it references the Kipling poem). The went to Bangladesh a few decades ago and found most women had large number of children. I don't mean a few I mean 5+. Today thanks to more education they have fewer which also means more time to do other tasks which increases income etc. The dowery system is still around in Asia. There's a whole loss of missing girls due to this preference.

I'd note that the social structure that existed decades ago no longer is in place. It is fine to date/marry someone of a different religion, race, ethnic, same sex etc. But from this brings more competition which means it is not as easy as it once was to find a mate.

Adding a bit to what Ignatius said I know of someone working with american indian women who have been imprisoned. While there might be some sympathy towards them being american indians the fact of the matter is they did significant crimes to put themselves in jail. Sympathy cannot exist in such circumstances. The victim status ends. Also is that what is the difference between "victim" and "survivor" other than semantics?

In terms of guns certainly it can be argued that they can kill but then again so can cars. Access to cars is easier than a gun because we allow younger people and generally do not test people as hard. Drivers licenses are not FID cards.

If you want to examine a bit more about violence in the country I'd highly recommend watching this film. Yes it is about 30 years old but it's graphic, to the point and makes it well
http://www.youtube.com/embed/xlvRFfoSk1U

The issue with weapons is that making them illegal does not prevent them from being acquired. If you make something illegal then the recourse is either to smuggle it in or use something in its place. There are urban areas near me that have sound systems set up that detect gunshots. If shots are fired police will be there. But knives do not give off a sound, brass knuckles don't either..same with bats. It is hard to ban anything...while in China I didn't see weapons on police for the most part..in Hong Kong they look like Robocop. I read in the paper while there that someone jumped some cops and stole the weapons..so much for the laws.

Right now as I write this apparently 47 people or so have been injured in an attack with guns and grenades in belgium
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16161746 If laws prevented crime then surely we wouldn't have crime now would we? Vermont has the most lax gun laws in the country..even compaired to NV or even NH. You don't need to register a gun, you don't need a firearms permit etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Vermont

You don't see much for gun crimes in VT because...well they don't really have much for crime..period. VT ranked 48 out of 51 (dc included) in 2006
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html In terms of actual homicide (all weapons and methods) it would rank as a 15th highest cause of death (2009)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf Non violent death kills much more than violent death.

When I grew up, Indian was unambiguous because there were almost no Asian Indians around. And even now, the context is usually enough to distinguish. If not, I just say "from India" rather than Indian, as in "He's from India."

I heard WOG was a term used in young rowdy british groups. Probably not PC as it was included in "Paki Bashing" conversations !

WOG-Western Oriental Gentlemen.

Carlos Mencia - My Spokesman for racism. Rah Rah Raza !

The left refuses to admit that men and women are different and that each gender has advantages for some mental tasks.

Yes, I agree, andnot just mental tasks. I got dissed once just for pointing out that ALL of the top weight-lifters are men, and that that is simply biological. There are clear biological non-reproductive differences between men and women, but it's just not PC on the left to admit that.

DO NOT tell anyone women were NOT considered credit worthy for a mortgage prior to 1974. Like a homeless dude, You just become invisible.

Almost forgot: both left and right are categorically forbidden from criticizing Israel for any reason:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/

Dan8267 says

Of course, had we been snuffed out either the Neanderthals or Homo Erectus would have been able to survive.

Oh, but Neanderthals have been able to survive.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110809/full/476136a.html

leoj707 says

Oh, but Neanderthals have been able to survive.

Most scientist think it's unlikely we're descendant fro Neanderthals because of insufficient similarities in Mitochondria DNA. The evidence isn't conclusive either way, yet, but in any case, genetically we're not as similar to Neanderthals as to the Africans 200,000 years ago.

Almost forgot: both left and right are categorically forbidden from criticizing Israel for any reason:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/

When this book was published it created a significant uproar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
There was also They Dare to Speak Out that came out around in '85...

Some of this is really way out there because even though countries rattle sabers much of it is just to prop up energy prices. Israel actually buys oil from Iran..just not directly. Usually it gets into Rotterdam and they buy it there
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/israelstehranconnection

The scary thing about Mershimers book isn't so much what it said but where it left off. It stated future revisions would contain what fundamentalist Christians believe on top of this. Some of the terminologies and concepts of identity are so illogical. If Israel claims they are a Jewish state how can it be democratic given that religions themselves are not democratic. Otherwise we'd all just vote each other into heaven.

Fortunately there are other lobbies such as J Street that can counter AIPAC.

the same winter solstice holday as Hanukkah

Hanukkah is not and never was a winter solstice holyday. In fact it is not a Holyday in jewish tradition, but a minor period of remembering. Of course, Christmas was initially celebrated on January 6th with the Baptism, later on moved earlier to Dec 25th, thus creating the 12 days of Christmas between Dec 25th and Jan 6th. This was done to cover North European Yule celebration.

Only in America the celebrations were moved to the period prior to Dec 25th partially for commercial reasons and partially to get close to Hanukkah, which got elevated out of any proportion for the same exact reason.

So, Happy Holydays sound like better greeting than Merry Christmas, which is a nonsense before Dec 25th.

But I think the most appropriate greeting would be "Happy Shopping".