Problem is that individual behavior is light-years different than group behavior, and so far, the group behavior of the Republicans is anti-government, anti-science, anti-truth, anti-governing and seems to be against anything helpful to struggling Americans and intent on being government nihilists. When will the party controlling the government start governing? Many years ago John Mitchell, then Attorney General, prophetically said, "Watch what we do and not what we say." I don't care whether individually a member of Congress is smart and reasonable, only what collectively they are doing. And it ain't a pretty picture!
My nephew teaches ESL at a major university as a prerequisite for foreign students not yet proficient enough in English to participate in regular college classes. There has already been a major drop-off in students and this stupid ban will be a killer. All these students are full-pay and generate significant revenue to colleges and universities as noted in the article and could be a way for these students to return home with a good perception of the USA in their adult life.
Given the uncertainty and belligerence toward these students (and foreign faculty too) why would any foreign parent with the means to send their child overseas now consider the United States given the uncertainty of being able to continue their education without interruption? These are long term family planning issues and, given the continuing uncertainty and demagoguery against foreign nationals, why not choose another English-speaking country like Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc.?
What a monumentally stupid decision that will reverberate for years to come.
I find it odd that among the many fathers of this Trump debacle acknowledged by Gitlin, whose writings I respect, omitted was the Democratic Party's refusal to acknowledge the mood of the voters who are hurting by advocating for more of the same old same old, albeit a slight push by Bernie to inch toward a bold statement of how government can help. It was clear two years ago the Party had its coronation planned for Hillary. Why it didn't advocate for the issues that aroused and energized the voters on both sides of the aisle is bewildering to me. The DNC position of educational debt relief, a foremost issue for young voters, was at best lame, just more tinkering around the edges of a generational catastrophe. Why not free tuition for all public colleges and universities, and writing off educational debt? We found trillions to write off debt of the financial services industry brought on by their own fraud and greed, but can't bail out the generation that will be needed to support us oldsters. They would have voted in droves and would likely have become Democrats forever. I could go on, but to not mention the role the DNC played in ignoring the pain out there is foremost to me.
So Bush is a jerk for asking for and getting the $100,000. I can't imagine what he has to say that's worth $5. The problem seems to me to be with with the charity. Why in hell would they give him that much for a speech and not tell him instead to go pound sand? Iraqi and Afghan sand at that.
According to Citizens United and the Supremes, corporations have citizenship rights ...except when it comes to publicly committing crimes they admit they are guilty of. Like in the BP example. So ...who's going to jail? No, for complicity in crimes they hide behind their corporate shield as non-citizens and pay measly fines using someone else's money, their customers. Worse, our government is complicit in this charade of justice. At least when Reagan was president, over 1,000 corporate criminals in the S&L scandal actually did serve time.
But oh my, if your caught with a few joints in your pocket, it's jail time for you, another payoff to the prison-governmental complex. To paraphrase basketball player Allen Iverson, "JUSTICE? Are we talkin' about Justice?"
If the US is serious about never making a nuclear first strike (and I hope we are), why won't the US government give such assurances to Iran and also offer to ensure that Iran will be protected by the US against ANY nuclear strike? If Iran were given such guarantees, they would have much less reason to pursue a nuclear military capability (assuming they are). Iran is surrounded on all sides by countries with a nuclear military capability that threaten them (US and Israel), so it's not unreasonable that they would be defensive and feel the need to protect their national interest by having a nuclear weapon. This capability has obviously worked for the reclusive North Korean government in fending off their perceived aggressors, and being treated with more deference by international players than their otherwise threat would presume.
Juan, does this make any sense militarily and politically to extend such an offer and see whether the Iranians are prepared to engage in more serious discussions?
Problem is that individual behavior is light-years different than group behavior, and so far, the group behavior of the Republicans is anti-government, anti-science, anti-truth, anti-governing and seems to be against anything helpful to struggling Americans and intent on being government nihilists. When will the party controlling the government start governing? Many years ago John Mitchell, then Attorney General, prophetically said, "Watch what we do and not what we say." I don't care whether individually a member of Congress is smart and reasonable, only what collectively they are doing. And it ain't a pretty picture!
My nephew teaches ESL at a major university as a prerequisite for foreign students not yet proficient enough in English to participate in regular college classes. There has already been a major drop-off in students and this stupid ban will be a killer. All these students are full-pay and generate significant revenue to colleges and universities as noted in the article and could be a way for these students to return home with a good perception of the USA in their adult life.
Given the uncertainty and belligerence toward these students (and foreign faculty too) why would any foreign parent with the means to send their child overseas now consider the United States given the uncertainty of being able to continue their education without interruption? These are long term family planning issues and, given the continuing uncertainty and demagoguery against foreign nationals, why not choose another English-speaking country like Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc.?
What a monumentally stupid decision that will reverberate for years to come.
I find it odd that among the many fathers of this Trump debacle acknowledged by Gitlin, whose writings I respect, omitted was the Democratic Party's refusal to acknowledge the mood of the voters who are hurting by advocating for more of the same old same old, albeit a slight push by Bernie to inch toward a bold statement of how government can help. It was clear two years ago the Party had its coronation planned for Hillary. Why it didn't advocate for the issues that aroused and energized the voters on both sides of the aisle is bewildering to me. The DNC position of educational debt relief, a foremost issue for young voters, was at best lame, just more tinkering around the edges of a generational catastrophe. Why not free tuition for all public colleges and universities, and writing off educational debt? We found trillions to write off debt of the financial services industry brought on by their own fraud and greed, but can't bail out the generation that will be needed to support us oldsters. They would have voted in droves and would likely have become Democrats forever. I could go on, but to not mention the role the DNC played in ignoring the pain out there is foremost to me.
So Bush is a jerk for asking for and getting the $100,000. I can't imagine what he has to say that's worth $5. The problem seems to me to be with with the charity. Why in hell would they give him that much for a speech and not tell him instead to go pound sand? Iraqi and Afghan sand at that.
According to Citizens United and the Supremes, corporations have citizenship rights ...except when it comes to publicly committing crimes they admit they are guilty of. Like in the BP example. So ...who's going to jail? No, for complicity in crimes they hide behind their corporate shield as non-citizens and pay measly fines using someone else's money, their customers. Worse, our government is complicit in this charade of justice. At least when Reagan was president, over 1,000 corporate criminals in the S&L scandal actually did serve time.
But oh my, if your caught with a few joints in your pocket, it's jail time for you, another payoff to the prison-governmental complex. To paraphrase basketball player Allen Iverson, "JUSTICE? Are we talkin' about Justice?"
If the US is serious about never making a nuclear first strike (and I hope we are), why won't the US government give such assurances to Iran and also offer to ensure that Iran will be protected by the US against ANY nuclear strike? If Iran were given such guarantees, they would have much less reason to pursue a nuclear military capability (assuming they are). Iran is surrounded on all sides by countries with a nuclear military capability that threaten them (US and Israel), so it's not unreasonable that they would be defensive and feel the need to protect their national interest by having a nuclear weapon. This capability has obviously worked for the reclusive North Korean government in fending off their perceived aggressors, and being treated with more deference by international players than their otherwise threat would presume.
Juan, does this make any sense militarily and politically to extend such an offer and see whether the Iranians are prepared to engage in more serious discussions?