Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:48 PM
Wed Dec 2
51 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
03:48 PM
Maybe I'm not lurking the right conspiracy sites, but the only thing I've been able to determine, based on a passing Alex Jones quote, is that environmentalism (as a whole?) is an attempt to steal your land. And then... I don't know.
Can anyone explain to me why anyone could be so angrily against curbing pollution?
That's what it really boils down to, as far as I can tell. Even if you don't believe that global warming/climate change is real, why would you choose to be against efforts to slow down/half pollution?
05:57 PM
The #1 backers for Cap and Trade originally were Goldman Sachs and Enron.
It creates a whole new derivatives market in Carbon trading.
06:03 PM
"$94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely."
That is from a WSJ article.
It's always money and control.
06:31 PM
If these energy companies are so scared of lost profits, maybe they should invest in "green" technologies too. It's not anyone else's problem but their own that they put all their eggs into a non-renewable resource.
06:46 PM
You seem to think it is more noble for "green" companies to make money based off of bad research than oil companies.
"Green" technology will be embraced when it can produce cheaper and better energy. Technology still needs to catch up to that.
07:01 PM
Furthermore, it seemed to me that you, or whoever your friends are that are concerned over "money and control," are not acknowledging that energy companies already have substantial "money and control" yet you (or they) defend them in spite of this new technology. Sure, it may be expensive/inefficient now, but the price of oil will only go up, and once it reaches $100, will I hear you bitching about windfall profits from Exxon Mobil?
07:10 PM
If oil goes up again Americans will respond as we did before and stop using as much. There are vast amounts of untapped oil and gas we would need to use up before this becomes a real worry.
07:15 PM
07:39 PM
03:03 PM
03:11 PM
Christ, I am having cabbage for dinner.
07:43 PM
02:58 PM
[women.timesonline.co.uk]
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
photographer.and.manny:
maybe so, but Mother wasn't their problem. Their failed sense of clubbiness might have been a bigger part.
11/25/09
11/25/09
[blogs.reuters.com]
11/25/09
[blogs.wsj.com]
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
That's not a hard impression to create.
This is a part of the immigration "debate" I don't get. Are people like Pareene in favor of just opening up the borders? If so, why aren't they railing away at the laws?
Dobbs certainly *seems* like a racist, but is there any proof? Or has he just been painted this way by the vicious, teeth-baring, hellions of shrill?
11/25/09
He is, in fact, a horrible racist. It's pretty well-documented.
I'm certainly in favor of opening up the borders. I'd like very much to drastically liberalize our immigration process. America was founded by the world's unwanted and prospered with them. We'd do well to remember that this country is about the walls that it doesn't have, not the walls Lou Dobbs wants us to build (on the Mexican border).
11/25/09
So at least the discussion can be based on the fact that undocumented workers are a part of our society who work and live amongst us and our children.
11/25/09
Links please. (I'll poke around too).
I guess my fear about this openness, to which I am inclined as well, is that the moment you open the floodgates, you lose this liberal, loving, paradise where we can afford to pontificate on human rights.
#tips
11/25/09
Yeah... issue is bifurcated. a) What do we do with all the people here? I say deal with it... we let people in, so we need to accomodate them. b) Open borders... whole other can of worms.
#tips
11/25/09
11/25/09
Well, it's mostly based on an assumption that his xenophobic outrage is racially stoked. As with many accusations of "racism" it's indirect - e.g., opposition to health care, etc. For the purposes of this forum it's safe to state he's racist, even if the more precise definition is more likely to be "abormally focused on Mexican immigrants as potential carriers of disease and/or criminal intent."
#tips
11/25/09
Not missing a thing.
#tips
11/25/09
Liberalizing the immigration process makes it less likely that undocument, untested, unsafe individuals will sneak into the country. We can devote resources to keeping the "bad ones" out - terrorists, criminals, drug runners -instead of spending a fortune on trying to keep so many others out.
#tips
11/25/09
The problem is that in calling these people criminals, you are implying that they would also have to be forgiven for being criminals.
That's where distinction is: if you enter the country illegally to be a gang member, you are a criminal and need to be deported. If you entered the country illegally to be a construction worker, you are not a criminal and can be eligible for amnesty.
11/25/09
It gets complicado... amnesty for the construction worker, and then the children become gang members.
#tips
11/25/09
#tips
11/25/09
"If you entered the country illegally to be a construction worker, you are not a criminal and can be given amnesty."
Well, they would be a criminal until they are granted amnesty. My issue is that the one of the primary functions of government is to secure the borders. Yes, most illegals are probably not horrible. In fact, I'm sure plenty are downright good and upstanding people. The issue isn't over whether we like them or not, but our governments ability to manage the borders. Illegals, good intentioned or not, can negatively affect the economy and ecology (of both our country and theirs), which is why such things are regulated.
#tips
11/25/09
You are kidding, right?
11/25/09
I wish I was. Are you on the east coast, Niko? You see since our schools here in the West are poor excuses for juvenile retention centers, the children tend to look for structure elsewhere. One of these children of construction workers brandished a gun at my family, so I'm a little attuned to the problem.
#tips
11/25/09
You should also understand that simply deporting all illegals can "negatively affect the economy and ecology", too.
There can't be a wholesale solution.
11/25/09
Getting a bit of that racist bug?
I can't wait to hear your opinion on investing in education for the poor after you get mugged by a black kid.
11/25/09
Why racist? I'm pointing out a fact, and bemoaning a fucked up educational system. We should pour boatloads of money into education, *while* preventing administrators from building themselves gleaming steel and glass office towers, driving around in chauffeured limousines, and working 10 hours a week. We should find a way to give the kids the support and guidance they need in their early years that they're not getting from their parents, which is turning teachers into jailers. Why are you trying to vilify someone who doesn't want to put up with a boatload of shit?
#tips
11/25/09
I agree with this comment, but the previous two are total horseshit.
11/25/09
I can't wait to hear your opinion on investing in education for the poor after you get mugged by a black kid."
Seems unfair. First off, investing in education has nothing to do with forgiving criminal acts. Secondly, you are the one assuming the illegals are a particular race. There are illegals of varying races, and despite the prominance of latino illegals, I don't see a good reason to make this about race. Unless you are implying that if Uncle Billy had the same incident occur with an illegal Canadian he would think differently about it.
"You should also understand that simply deporting all illegals can "negatively affect the economy and ecology", too. "
I don't want a wholesale solution (particularly for this very reason). I just don't want illegals granted amnesty. There no logical flow from "well, we can't deport them without taking an economic hit," to, "Legalize them!"
#tips
11/25/09
Oh how generous of you! Some of the weird sombrero men who bus your tables just might be good people!
Why, um, wouldn't you assume they are all good people? When almost all immigrants are, you know, risking their lives to earn a better (read: incredibly shitty) wage for their families.
And securing borders is "one of the primary functions of government"?
You must mean: "securing borders is one of the primary functions of government now that all the white Europeans are done benefiting from an American open-door policy and all that's waiting to come here are scary minorities."
11/25/09
You can do that without kicking out the Mexicans. Not saying gang violence isn't a problem, just that deportation doesn't solve it. Our "culturally pure" America isn't some virtuous beacon being assailed by grubby foreigners who want to wave guns at you.
11/25/09
{sigh} This is like trying to argue with Don Quixote while he's tilting at strawmen pinned to the arms of a windmill.
#tips
11/25/09
No. I am assuming that the person who has a problem with undocumented construction workers being given amnesty because one day a child of a one pulled a gun on him - has that problem due to racism on his part.
Now, this assumption of mine may or may not be correct, but the very fact that you are not even able to correctly identify what the assumption was, illustrates that you have a problem with analyzing a discussion. You are not up to it, which is really OK, not everyone has to be, and everyone does have the right to an opinion. It's just that I don't have the time to explain things to you.
11/25/09
I didn't realize the only people who illegally crossed the US borders were Mexican. Thank you, your gross generalization is enlightening.
"Why, um, wouldn't you assume they are all good people? When almost all immigrants are, you know, risking their lives to earn a better (read: incredibly shitty) wage for their families."
I was trying to say someones citizenship should not be determined on sympathy.
As far as why I would assume they are not good people - the only thing we know about them (because it is intrinsic) is that they are criminals. If that is all you know about someone, it doesn't seem smart to assume they are all good. It fact, it isn't smart (or accurate) to assume ANY group is composed of all good people.
"And securing borders is "one of the primary functions of government"?
You must mean: "securing borders is one of the primary functions of government now that all the white Europeans are done benefiting from an American open-door policy and all that's waiting to come here are scary minorities.""
Again, amazing how you come in with your preconceptions about what I am saying. Why is this about race and not about the one thing we know for certain that we are talking about? That people have broken the law by crossing our borders.
Scary minorities? If we did deport all the illegals (which I am not for) there would still be plenty of 'scary minorities' around. It may shift the percentages a tad, but certainly not forever. So again, how is that about race?
Also, just because America has had a certain policy in the past, or was founded on a certain principle, does not mean me must carry it throughout the rest of our days, even if it becomes illogical and impractical.
#speakup
11/25/09
Just read more carefully, and stop being so freaking knee-jerk. You're assuming shit all over the place.
Happy thanksgiving.
#tips
11/25/09
The problem with the example Uncle Billy gave was that it was just a singular incident, so it doesn't necessarily represent a bigger problem. That error has nothing to do with racism.
It would be perfectly fair to assume that he makes the generalization because he believes illegals (of any race) will give rise to lower income families, which tend to commit a higher frequency of crimes like the one he described.
You chose to assume he meant, "I'm afraid of Mexicans because they are violent people."
Again, unless you think he would have felt differently had the gunmen been the child of a illegal caucasian Canadian, then race isn't the issue. You assumed that race was the issue.
#speakup
11/25/09
Yeah, it's not like anyone is waving a gun in front of my house.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
11/25/09
...
You assumed that race was the issue
Just let me know when you are done arguing with yourself. Also, points for honesty:
I just don't want illegals granted amnesty.
That's certainly a statement that no one can argue with.
11/25/09
Because you're not arguing to deport the children of, say, Irish or Italian immigrants, or Polish, or German. And when people say BORDERS, they're very, very often referring to one particular border (though, hey, maybe you are the one who doesn't mean that).
So, you tell me. What are you willing to pay considerably more for? Food? Housing? Construction (including public works)? How about convenience store goods? Textiles, maybe? What about taxis?
11/26/09
Check your Webster's dictionary. If you do something illegal then you are a criminal. How do you miss such a basic fact?
11/27/09
Like smoking pot? Or parking your car illegally? Yeah, I am checking Webster's dictionary as we speak.
11/27/09
11/27/09
The law is wrong. We need to change the law. That's what we are talking about here.
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/25/09
I fucking knew it.
11/25/09
He's a shitty salesman.
11/25/09
11/25/09