from the other-side-of-george-will dept.
Alternet reports
You don't even want to know what the Fox News gasbags thought of this:
In a comments that seemed to surprise some of his fellow panelists, Fox News contributor and conservative columnist George Will said Sunday that the U.S. should welcome the unaccompanied minors surging across the southern border, fleeing violence in their home countries, reported Raw Story.
"We ought to say to these children, 'Welcome to America, you're going to go to school, and get a job, and become American,'" Mr. Will said on Fox News, according to Raw Story. He added, "The idea that we can't assimilate these 8-year-old criminals with their teddy bears is preposterous."Fox News host Chris Wallace challenged Mr. Will, Raw Story reported, saying, "Why should we be dealing with Central America's problem? We can't import the problem. They've got to deal with it there, and our border has to mean something."
Mr. Will countered that the U.S. should handle the problem because it is capable of doing so. "We've handled what [American poet] Emma Lazarus called the 'wretched refuse of your teeming shore' a long time ago, and a lot more people than this," Mr. Will said, according to Raw Story.
Let's just say they treated Will like a dotty old auntie who simply didn't know what he was saying. Dana Perino said she admired him for "speaking his mind" but added that it's easy for someone standing on the sidelines to have such opinions. It's different when you have to be elected. (She neglected to add "by selfish assholes ...") The rest of the panel just yelled "get in line!!!" you're "illegal" as if sending refugee kids back to their violent cities to be tortured and/or killed to "wait their turn" makes any sense.
Both Will and Brit Hume have made this argument now and the rest of the younger Fox crew looks at them like they've sprouted a second head. They honestly have no experience with people being decent toward anyone who isn't part of their little club. It's literally unimaginable to them.
Related:
Major Newspaper Dumps George Will, Apologizes For Offensive Rape Column.
Related Stories
The Center for American Progress reports
Early this month, Washington Post columnist George Will wrote a column claiming that being a rape victim is now a "coveted status" that college women seek out. Will argued that complaints of rape and sexual assualt on college campus were overblown. He also suggested that women claiming to be raped were "delusional."
[...]
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which has published Will's column for a number of years, has had enough. In a message today to readers, the paper announced they were dropping Will from their paper and apologized for running his column on sexual assault
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @10:25PM
Is this story relevant to the site?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Friday August 01 2014, @10:41PM
Indeed... I can't even call this one for the political/humanist/whatever nerds. Problem is that much like this guy's rape column he's doing it for a specific reason and probably not because he actually buys his own line. He wants to generate the most uproar and in turn get himself paid attention to like all the other whores- I mean pundits. But as another comment pointed out the US itself is a pretty big part of the problem causing immigration so none of these people really have any place to talk. The drug business is going to get a hell of a lot more lucrative too with the ever tightening restrictions on prescriptions. Of course, that won't stop people like Will from screaming "BUT TEH CHILDRENS" and it won't stop the Fox idiots from screaming "THEY WANT OUR JERBS".
Not really sure what other side of Will we're talking about here. Both sides are asshole, it's just that one is transparent bond villain-type asshole and this one is the more subtle greater-than-thou type.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday August 02 2014, @01:42AM
I can't even call this one for the political/humanist/whatever nerds.
Those people aren't nerds. I agree with the karma whore who posted his offtopic comment AC so his karma wouldn't suffer, but that doesn't mean the topic isn't interesting. If you don't want to read it don't click, there are other articles. Keep your bitching in your journal where it belongs.</offtopic>
As to George Will, what I actually came to this thread to comment about was, you guys know I'm old. Will used to be sane all the time; his newspaper editorials were well written, made sense, and were logical (much like the one quoted in the summary). I don't remember when he started writing like a loon, but I suspect someone powerful gave him "a stern talking to", as in an offer one can't refuse. Either that or he started smoking crack.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Saturday August 02 2014, @01:31PM
mcgrew, you're not really in any position to be accusing someone else of whoring or being off topic and let's be honest this guy was never sane. I've not seen many articles from him but the ones I have seen are probably one of the finest examples of saying a lot but at the same time saying nothing. They should use him to power a quantum hamster wheel powered computer, he'd surely be more useful there than he is now.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday August 02 2014, @03:20PM
Yes, I am quite frequently offtopic (this comment I'm writing should be modded as such) and I do it logged in, not AC. Karma whores don't do that. If I were a karma whore would I remark, as I often have, "please mod this down"?
As I said, I'm a geezer. Decades ago he did seem sane, and his descent into the darkness seemed to me to be quite abrupt. Like I said, I don't remember when but it was probably some time in the seventies, long before the internet came along.
They should use him to power a quantum hamster wheel powered computer, he'd surely be more useful there than he is now.
I can't argue with that, it's been a really long time since he's written anything worthwhile.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday August 02 2014, @04:33AM
"THEY WANT OUR JERBS".
What jobs? All jobs have been outsourced to countries with a lower payscale - to save money, I suppose.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:24AM
Probably not if you're a Democrat.
(Score: 2) by kaganar on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:49AM
This story does indeed seem silly to have on Soylent News. Having no story would have been better than this story, even if the queue was empty. If we're worried about the empty queue problem, then at least categorize this story as fodder and put it in a corresponding category that I can ignore. (Tech/nerd politics is not the same as politics, and US-centric talking heads on TV shouldn't be confused with government.)
I've usually fairly reserved about whining about stories (e.g. sensationalist and misleading headlines and summaries are fast becoming the status quo) but this just takes the cake.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @10:26PM
Because until we legalize drugs, we're directly responsible for the cause to a lot of their problems. And don't act like we haven't assassinated Central American leaders and put our own puppets in their place. We should've never meddled in Central America again after completing the Panama Canal.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @11:24PM
I was about to lend my voice to the bitching about a story that is about as far from whatever charter there is for this website until I read that comment. It is still a huge stretch to go from bashing fox (aka shooting fish in a barrel) to anti-drug-war/pro-freedom, but at least it is now relevant.
I'll add to the on-topic discussion by saying the reason this flood of kids is happening now is because the DEA has largely succeeded in shutting down the Caribbean drug routes [reason.com] so the cartels are using overland routes instead, right through the villages that these kids come from. It is another example of unintended consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @01:32AM
The southern US border is not with Central America. Do you yanks ever study geography?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @03:14AM
No shit its not, you fucking retard, but Mexico isn't any better, again thanks to the US for trafficking guns and financing drug cartels by keeping drugs illegal, so why would they stop there?
(Score: 4, Informative) by tynin on Friday August 01 2014, @10:43PM
Fox news isn't news. At best it is tabloid trash. I suspect if someone bothered to watch even a small handful of stories they air, you could find quite a bit to tear their arguments apart.
This is an entirely emotionally driven piece of drivel.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by frojack on Friday August 01 2014, @11:19PM
Oh climb down.
Listening to CNN is every bit as stupid.
Besides George Will was wrong, they aren't 8 year olds.
Most (the VAST Majority) of these so called children are teenagers, many as old as 18.
Many of them were carrying guns before they decided to come here.
50K already, expected to be 220k before the end of next year.
By the Obama administration’s own estimation, 230,000 unaccompanied alien minors are expected to cross through the Rio Grande Sector by the end of next year...
These are not children being sent by their parents to safety. There is something far more sinister going on.
Go look at the pictures. These aren't 8 year olds, and its time for you to stop acting like one.
http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/regional/250179-known-gang-members-among-thousands-of-illegal-immigrant-children-storming-the-u-s-border-and-government-is-now-trying-to-silence-officers-from-talking-to-the-media.html [georgianewsday.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657695/Known-gang-members-thousands-illegal-immigrant-children-storming-U-S-border-government-trying-silence-officers-talking-media.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/18658-illegal-immigrant-children-include-ms-13-gang-members [thenewamerican.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @11:27PM
> There is something far more sinister going on.
lol, always the first to assume other people are assholes.
Always the last to look in the mirror.
What is really going on is that these kids are fleeing drug-war violence. [wsj.com]
Even 18 year olds don't want to be raped and murdered.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 02 2014, @01:17AM
How refreshing. Not EVERYONE drinks the Kool-Aid. Indeed, a large percentage of these "children" are elder teens and twenty-something kids, most of those members of gangs and/or drug cartels.
How many 8 year old kids are equipped to leave home, and make a thousands of miles trek across largely hostile country? There are some, but not a whole lot of them. How 'bout 6 year old kids? 4 year olds? I know damned well that toddlers aren't doing it!
Each and every one of these kids are tools being manipulated for political purposes.
It's a hell of a shame that we, Americans, aren't bright enough to realize that we are being manipulated by the media, by Washington, by the drug cartels, and God only knows who else.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday August 02 2014, @01:36AM
I suspect you will get modded flamebait just a rapidly as I did.
Critical thinking appears to be less appreciated here than the green site.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:03AM
> I suspect you will get modded flamebait just a rapidly as I did.
That's how you know you are right.
Being persecuted is proof you are a truth teller.
Just ask Jesus.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you..."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:19AM
The key part to that quote is "for righteousness' sake". See, you can be "persecuted" for being a total tool, as well. Whether he ends up getting "persecuted" for speaking truth or for being a tool is still up for debate. IMHO.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:42AM
There is no debate about frojack's righteousness because Jesus, blessed be his name, will strike down any one who falsely lays claim to righteousness.
Frojack knows to fear the wrath of Jesus and would never emulate the Lord in vain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @04:42AM
"blessed be his name"
Don't forget "his holy noodlyness"!
Sacrilege!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:12AM
It should be pointed out that citing the Daily Mail doesn't do much for your credibility. Your bias is showing. Just thought you should know.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:36AM
> It should be pointed out that citing the Daily Mail doesn't do much for your credibility.
It should also be pointed out that first article is just the daily mail article hosted on a news aggregation site.
He cited the same exact story twice for emphasis, that's how you know it is rock solid.
The third article is from "The New American" [wikipedia.org] aka The John Birch Society, so we know it was vetted with editorial standards that Fox can only aspire to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @03:07AM
Thank you. I suspected as much when I saw that it was called "The New American" (it gave me that eerie, creepy feeling), but when I saw the Daily Mail being quoted as a source...well, I just couldn't be bothered to look much further. I gave my comment about as much effort as I thought his citations were worth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @05:07AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @03:21AM
Information should be judged based on its validity rather than its source. He may be biased, but who here isn't? Ad hominems don't really help anybody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @03:32AM
> Information should be judged based on its validity rather than its source.
Fool me once...
Nobody has the time to acquire the expert-level knowledge required to evaluate every story's "validity." We all have to judge based on the source. We are known by the company we keep and his decision to choose the daily mail and the john birch society says the guy is not just biased but delusional, off his rocker, nucking futs. He whines about his "critical thinking" being unappreciated when it is apparent for anyone to see that it is "critically impaired thinking" that isn't appreciated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @05:32PM
Sure. Which is why I didn't bother responding to his claims about these poor widdle kids actually being thugs and gang members. I honestly can't really say one way or the other. If, on the other hand, he wants me to take his claims seriously then he will have to provide a more credible source. Now, I suppose I could have done a bit more investigation on my own to check the validity of his claims, but life is short and I can't be bothered to run down the wild-eyed claims of every polemicist that crosses my path. Sometimes it is best to just reserve judgment and say "not proven".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @11:52PM
I agree. I would rather the news queue go empty than bother with this sort of sensationalist drivel.
Oh and some may disagree that it is sensationalist drivel. Look no further than the title of the 'story' George Will Says Something Sane, Fox Hosts Freak Out 1) who the hell is George Will (and should I care)? 2) why do you bother commenting on anything fox news says?
This is meant to do nothing more than cause an argument between people who should know better. If I wanted to fight like that I can always go post in the green site. There are plenty of talking heads trolling there and plenty of arguments of inane drivel like this to be had.
'news' like CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC are not about news. They are about ratings and selling you what is in the endless commercials. Look no further than the prime time slots and what they are devoted to. Talking heads reiterating their opinion as if it were news. If you dont think they are not trying to sell you something look at it from a marketing perspective. Notice how they always structure their news in the choice architecture pattern.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ticho on Friday August 01 2014, @10:53PM
Can we take trash stories like this away from this site? I know that "SoylentNews ...is people!" slogan can be taken to mean that anything goes, but this is taking it too far.
(Score: 1) by tizan on Friday August 01 2014, @11:10PM
Meh...should be taken as a Friday afternoon type of story...but should not become a daily fare though
We have enough of "real depressing human stupidity at work" news elsewhere.
(Score: 1) by gidds on Saturday August 02 2014, @08:18AM
It may be Friday afternoon for you, but it's Saturday morning here.
And while sometimes it can be instructive to see just how extreme and twisted US politics can be, I'd prefer that this site didn't become too focused there. There's a whole world out here, folks!
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:16AM
Until the queue is overflowing with stories, the editors have the choice to either post whats in there or nothing. If you'd rather nothing be posted, you should be browsing the web with Notepad, and if you want better stories to be posted, submit them!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:29AM
mod parent up
those who complain about story quality are kinda like politicians telling front line troops to stop being pussies (ok that is much worse)
(Score: 2) by ticho on Saturday August 02 2014, @08:20AM
That's exactly what I'm doing, Mr. Coward. But I can't stop others from submitting, nor accepting stupid stories like this.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by azrael on Saturday August 02 2014, @08:20AM
This one was in the queue a day or so, and we avoided posting it until:
It is tricky sometimes trying to decide between no story and one that we know would be less appealing. If a member of the community submits the story, it is at least interesting to them, and perhaps others.
The best solution is to give editors much more choice over the stories by submitting more (as has been said above :D).
You'll still get bad ones coming through, because some of us editors are weird with the craziest of interests and with our blinkers on we'll assume EVERYONE shares that same quirk - apologies in advance!
At the same time if pretty much everyone else doesn't like it, well this is a community site, so it is fair for you all to say you don't like it. I'm glad actually to see the posts objecting have been restrained and not calling for a lynching ;)
Some editors do go out and find stories, we try to do that at lean times. Then it gets tricker as editors don't want to pull their own stories from the queue which means other editors need to do that - that doubles the load on editors, so the more everyone else can help the better.
</public service announcement>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:19PM
Makes sense, thank you for your service :-)
(Score: 2) by tynin on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:30PM
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate hearing about how things operate on the other side of this interface. Makes perfect sense stories like this will get through from time to time. Thanks for your commitment to keeping this site a great place.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday August 03 2014, @11:51AM
"it wasn't the worst thing in the queue"
To quote the bank robber at the start of a classic 1970s Dirty Harry movie, "I gots ta know"
So what wonder of the literary world are we missing out on, in favor of this? Might be good for some laughs.
(Score: 1) by azrael on Sunday August 03 2014, @03:14PM
We get quite a bit of spam, dupes, and click-bait articles. Some will get through anyway, via a combination of editor error, misunderstanding, different tastes, and a deep-down desire to torment the community :D
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice. (that's the famous saying, right?)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:16AM
Wait until the US has zero unemployment and is able to look after the needs of its own poor and destitute. Don't add to the problem.
(Score: 4, Informative) by EQ on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:19AM
Keep this trash off the site. This isn't the Other/ Site. for a reason. If I want to read political polemics, name calling and other stupidity, as in the post, I'd go to another site. Dump this kind of bilge instead of promoting it.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by mendax on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:50AM
Oh, this is hardly trash. Some of us have an interest in learning about how such a right-wing psychopath as George Will can say something so practical, so intelligent, so un-Republican, un-neocon, un-neofascist, so intelligent. Some of us have an interest in Progressivism. Progressive thought generally protects our civil liberties and directly affects our access to the Internet. So... :-P
For the record, I don't agree with his opinion, but it shows that he's thinking for himself for a change.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @03:37AM
Actually, progressivism has very little to do with liberties. Sometimes it overlaps with them, but other times it's actively hostile.
You might be thinking of liberalism.
(Score: 2) by EQ on Saturday August 02 2014, @04:17AM
Its trash, loaded language and pejoratives. Not needed. If you want to make a RATIONAL point then do so, but the post flame bait - and it makes the original poster look like a politically narrow-minded progressive imbecile. As do you - "psychopath", "neofascist", etc. And FYI Progressivism doesn't protect much of anything if its in the way government control/regulation for "society" (even if its at the expense of individual liberties). Progressivism didn't bring about the civil rights changes for minorities, liberalism did. Try Libertarianism, or better yet, classical liberalism, if you want civil liberties protected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @04:54AM
> Progressivism didn't bring about the civil rights changes for minorities, liberalism did.
That is a non sequitur. Progressivism is the half of liberalism that is about civil rights.
To over-simplify: Liberalism = Progressivism + Deregulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @05:12AM
I don't think you mean non sequitur. Non sequitur means "it does not follow". What you seem to be complaining about is a flawed definition.
In actual fact, you're also wrong about that. Progressivism (and you can go back to the 19th century political writings to confirm this - try Teddy Roosevelt and Churchill for starters) has nothing to do with civil rights qua rights. It has to do with bringing rationality to government in the wake of the observed benefits of science and industrialisation and regularisation. The basic ideology of Progressivism is "We know a Better Way because SCIENCE!" - which fortunately often coincided with civil rights and treating people equally (women's suffrage, universal franchise and so on) but unfortunately was frequently hostile or indifferent to rights in favour of imposing top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions.
Liberals and progressives had an effective alliance in the civil rights era, but it is not, and was not, a sure thing. The progressive answer to NSA spying is: "As long as it works to secure the nation!" whereas the liberal answer is: "Are you out of your tiny mind?"
Progressive:Reactionary::Liberal:Authoritarian
Progressive:Liberal::Bicyclists:Drivers
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @05:21AM
> Progressivism has nothing to do with civil rights qua rights.
> It has to do with bringing rationality to government in the wake of the observed benefits
> of science and industrialisation and regularisation.
The Center for American Progress [americanprogress.org] disagrees with you. Just because it is those other things too does not mean it did not encompass civil rights as well.
And non-sequitur is only incorrect if your exclusionary definition of progressivism is true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @05:42AM
Read again, with attention this time.
Yes, they were on the liberal side vis-a-vis civil rights. That is what I said. However, that doesn't mean that progressivism as such is a particular part of liberalism. In actual fact there are liberal schools of thought which are suspicious of progressivism, and only have temporary alliances of conveniences with progressives.
It suits americanprogess.org's heroic narrative to cast themselves in a light of unstinting support for the rights of the individual, but that doesn't make that an accurate reflection of the genesis of, or current focus of progressive conduct. If you want a less self-serving definition, try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism [wikipedia.org]. Here's the first paragraph:
Please observe that nothing in there expressly (and only very obliquely by implication) addresses liberty as an ideal at all.
A current case in point is the PPACA. It's actively hostile to personal choice and personal liberties in many respects (and has stumbled in court more than once on those grounds, with more battles still in front of judges) but it's a fairly typical progressive approach: a top-down, fairly dictatorial law based on the view that They Know Best. Liberal responses range from grudging acceptance that maybe something should be done, and this is better than nothing, through to outrage. Progressive responses are essentially to the effect that the only thing which would make it better is a universal, no opt-out, single-payer-only, compulsory participation scheme.
Regardless of whether you think the PPACA is the work of Satan, or the greatest legislative achievement so far from the Obama administration's tenure, there's a crystal clear, highly measurable line of demarcation between the liberal and progressive analyses. To try to call progressivism a part of liberalism is to mischaracterise one or both of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @06:24AM
> It suits americanprogess.org's heroic narrative to cast themselves
That's the dismissive know-more-about-people-than-they-know-about-themselves response I expected.
And that you quoted wikipedia is the cherry on top.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday August 02 2014, @07:46AM
Libertarians are even scarier than Tea Party Republicans in my mind. And yes, my prejudices are showing in that posting and I won't apologize for them.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @10:03AM
Libertarians scary?
OK, I guess. Not sure why, since they largely confine themselves to involved and rather unrealistic quibbling about the nature of morality in politics, or trying to reduce government budgets, or voting for legal pot, but to each his own paranoia.
I don't think that the problem other posters had with your posts was your prejudices, as far as I can tell, but your rather creative redefinition of political movements and their roles. Or maybe they just assumed that you didn't really know the difference. I didn't really see anyone demanding (or expecting) any apologies.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday August 02 2014, @11:56PM
Don't forget about their abhorrence of aggressive wars. They're fine with defense, but a libertarian wouldn't have had us in Afghanistan for a dozen years -- one maybe -- and not at all in Iraq, or Libya, or any of the many countries we drone bomb regularly.
Honestly, the threat to life posed by Democrats and Republicans is so far in excess of that posed by libertarians, for anyone to be scared of libertarians demonstrates the quality of the DNC's and GOP's marketing capabilities. The major parties pose the most salient and lethal threat to Americans anywhere, and are given a total pass.
I'd certainly vote for a libertarian if he/she was on the ballot, though I see myself more as a green (kind of like a libertarian with social conscience).
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:50AM
I'll agree that this isn't a tech story, and so what. Many of the stories aren't mainly about tech. If you don't want to read a particular story, just skip it. That's what I do.
FWIW, I think that this *is* an important story if we want to figure out which way the country is going, just like the story about lying CIA heads are. That, also, is barely about tech. But it's also important.
You don't live in a vacuum, people. Things that happen can affect you.
Isolationism isn't new in the US, and has been somewhat justifiable. But not when we're running global wars, and not when our economy depends on foreign countries. Then it's just a vile combination of being stupid and being self-centered.
P.S.: Even in the days of Monroe the US government didn't act in a way that made an isolationist morality justifiable, but in those days it was MORE justifiable. But when the government puts troops down in "the Halls of Montezuma" or on "the shores of Tripoli", then an isolationist mind-set is immoral. Comfortable, though.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:24AM
Wierd
Your spellchecker needs a tune-up.
Isolationism
You were doing pretty well up to there.
The last thing the USA is is isolationist.
USA has 19 aircraft carriers ferchrisake.
That stopped being "defense" a long time ago.
...and to those folks who have mentioned taking care of Americans first (e.g. #76584 & #76596),
those 19 cost $4.5B each to build and another $1M/day to operate.
We could do a lot more at home if we'd cool it with the aggression.
Others have already mentioned the USA's moronic War on Drugs and how, if that ended today, the violence that drives this migration would have no reason to exist.
Ever hear of the School of the Americas? (Name changed to something else in recent years.)
It's where the USA trains the torturers and murderers of reactionary despots from Latin America.
The USA Gov't likes to spread the propaganda that it likes democracy--but totalitarian regimes are MUCH easier to manipulate, so it supports those at every turn.
Here's another term folks should recognize: Contragate.
The CIA and other US Gov't operatives have a long, dark history of poking their noses (and guns) into the affairs of other nations.
There's a list in the 4th paragraph here: (Notice multiple efforts in some places.)
America's Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953 [alternet.org]
NAFTA has screwed up the economy of Mexico and other places south of here.
Jose Average is having an even harder time there than Joe Average is here.
.
[James] Monroe
The Monroe Doctrine said that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to any more colonization by the Eastern Hemisphere; it did NOT say that the USA wouldn't get grabby on this side of the pond.
USA imperialism is a bit less overt, but it's easy to spot going back many years. [google.com]
It was always backed by the threat of the USMC. [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @12:53AM
The US cannot even feed or educate its own citizens, why the hell should limited resources be allocated to failing at feeding and educating children who are encouraged to enter the US illegally? Is there a sudden shortage of kids in the US?
The second question is of course - it doesn't stop at the children. When the kids are here, well, for humanitarian reasons you have to bring the parents. And then the uncles and cousins and neighbors and...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @01:16AM
> The US cannot even feed or educate its own citizens,
We absolutely can. We just choose not to out of apathy (the silent majority) and assholery (the vocal minority driving policy). Back in the 70s hunger in the US was a solved problem, but republic ideology undid all of that during the 80s and 90s.
> When the kids are here, well, for humanitarian reasons you have to bring the parents.
The vast majority of them are coming because their parents are already here.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:39AM
Indeed. I seem to recall being told that the US is fully capable of feeding the entire world all on it's own. Much of the hunger problem in the world is due to politics, not availability of food. (Withdrawing of food is often used as a weapon.) Yeah, its a fair call to say that US policy is being driven in large part by apathy and/or assholes, much to our shame.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by epitaxial on Saturday August 02 2014, @01:16AM
Now who is going to pay for it? The middle class through more taxes!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:44AM
Actually, paying for it would be a mere pittance compared to what the Federal government already spends on defense and medicare. Just so you know.