BTW a fourth child just died this year due to Trump's family separation policy which separating families like this would qualify as genocide under the geneva conventions. He was 2 and 1/2 years old.
All 4 kids would have died regardless of whose custody they were in.
It's a pretty strong statement to say they would all have died regardless. People die all the time, so in any group of thousands you're going to get the odd death. However, in a situation where people are being held in poor conditions, not provided with adequate nutrition and agencies like the Red Cross are not allowed to monitor their health it seems to me highly likely that the chances of death were higher than they could have been (and in my view should have been).
BTW a fourth child just died this year due to Trump's family separation policy which separating families like this would qualify as genocide under the geneva conventions. He was 2 and 1/2 years old.
All 4 kids would have died regardless of whose custody they were in.
It's a pretty strong statement to say they would all have died regardless. People die all the time, so in any group of thousands you're going to get the odd death. However, in a situation where people are being held in poor conditions, not provided with adequate nutrition and agencies like the Red Cross are not allowed to monitor their health it seems to me highly likely that the chances of death were higher than they could have been (and in my view should have been).
But in all 4 cases, it's not like the kid was healthy when they were in the US custody and then fell sick. It's the reverse.
It is estimated half of the 4000 person caravan were/are children. 4 kids out of roughly 2000 IMO is miraculous IMO if you read the above article and what the caravan had to go through to reach the US.
This last case, the child wasn't even separated from his family. He was taken to get medical treatment.
From the article:
A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official familiar with the case told CBS News the family encountered Border Patrol agents at Paso Del Norte Bridge on April 3. On April 6, the mother was advised the child was ill and the child was transported to a nearby hospital. A day later, the child was transported to a children's hospital. The family was given a notice to appear in court and was released on their own recognizance April 8.
The Guatemalan Consular General in El Paso, Tekandi Paniagua, said the child died Wednesday. The mother is still in El Paso but is not in custody.
Neither the mother nor the child were in custody when he died. They weren't separated by force and separation, what @smeagolheart called genocide, was not the cause of any of these kids dying.
BTW a fourth child just died this year due to Trump's family separation policy which separating families like this would qualify as genocide under the geneva conventions. He was 2 and 1/2 years old.
All 4 kids would have died regardless of whose custody they were in.
It's a pretty strong statement to say they would all have died regardless. People die all the time, so in any group of thousands you're going to get the odd death. However, in a situation where people are being held in poor conditions, not provided with adequate nutrition and agencies like the Red Cross are not allowed to monitor their health it seems to me highly likely that the chances of death were higher than they could have been (and in my view should have been).
But in all 4 cases, it's not like the kid was healthy when they were in the US custody and then fell sick. It's the reverse.
It is estimated half of the 4000 person caravan were/are children. 4 kids out of roughly 2000 IMO is miraculous IMO if you read the above article and what the caravan had to go through to reach the US.
This last case, the child wasn't even separated from his family. He was taken to get medical treatment.
From the article:
A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official familiar with the case told CBS News the family encountered Border Patrol agents at Paso Del Norte Bridge on April 3. On April 6, the mother was advised the child was ill and the child was transported to a nearby hospital. A day later, the child was transported to a children's hospital. The family was given a notice to appear in court and was released on their own recognizance April 8.
The Guatemalan Consular General in El Paso, Tekandi Paniagua, said the child died Wednesday. The mother is still in El Paso but is not in custody.
Neither the mother nor the child were in custody when he died. They weren't separated by force and separation, what @smeagolheart called genocide, was not the cause of any of these kids dying.
@deltago I agree with you about this case - from the reporting it does not look like either the separation policy or treatment by the Border Patrol were significant factors in the death. However, I don't agree that applies to all the earlier cases.
I heard a report on the radio this morning about increasing calls in Canada to review the existing agreement with the US providing that both countries will be classed as 'safe' for transfer of would be migrants - that's been prompted by the state of asylum seekers who have been through the US system before moving on to Canada, as well as the policy of family separation. The report said that immigration is becoming a hotter topic of discussion in Canada - is that something you agree with?
BTW a fourth child just died this year due to Trump's family separation policy which separating families like this would qualify as genocide under the geneva conventions. He was 2 and 1/2 years old.
All 4 kids would have died regardless of whose custody they were in.
It's a pretty strong statement to say they would all have died regardless. People die all the time, so in any group of thousands you're going to get the odd death. However, in a situation where people are being held in poor conditions, not provided with adequate nutrition and agencies like the Red Cross are not allowed to monitor their health it seems to me highly likely that the chances of death were higher than they could have been (and in my view should have been).
But in all 4 cases, it's not like the kid was healthy when they were in the US custody and then fell sick. It's the reverse.
It is estimated half of the 4000 person caravan were/are children. 4 kids out of roughly 2000 IMO is miraculous IMO if you read the above article and what the caravan had to go through to reach the US.
This last case, the child wasn't even separated from his family. He was taken to get medical treatment.
From the article:
A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official familiar with the case told CBS News the family encountered Border Patrol agents at Paso Del Norte Bridge on April 3. On April 6, the mother was advised the child was ill and the child was transported to a nearby hospital. A day later, the child was transported to a children's hospital. The family was given a notice to appear in court and was released on their own recognizance April 8.
The Guatemalan Consular General in El Paso, Tekandi Paniagua, said the child died Wednesday. The mother is still in El Paso but is not in custody.
Neither the mother nor the child were in custody when he died. They weren't separated by force and separation, what @smeagolheart called genocide, was not the cause of any of these kids dying.
deltago I agree with you about this case - from the reporting it does not look like either the separation policy or treatment by the Border Patrol were significant factors in the death. However, I don't agree that applies to all the earlier cases.
I heard a report on the radio this morning about increasing calls in Canada to review the existing agreement with the US providing that both countries will be classed as 'safe' for transfer of would be migrants - that's been prompted by the state of asylum seekers who have been through the US system before moving on to Canada, as well as the policy of family separation. The report said that immigration is becoming a hotter topic of discussion in Canada - is that something you agree with?
Yes and no.
Canada does/did have an immigration crisis of its own as people travel to the US on visiting visas and then cross into Canada illegally to seek asylum and it is putting a financial strain on cities and communities affected by it. It is this financial strain that has most people concerned IMO.
It's more of a logistics issue with the federal government sitting on their hands than a racial one as Canadian cities (especially Toronto) are multicultural and IMO are more tolerant and accepting to other ethnicities. Although racism does still exist.
Granted Canada borders three oceans and only one other large country. The "First Safe Country" agreement was to prevent asylum seekers from "shopping" countries and Canada benefited from that agreement tremendously as those who make it to our country are usually financially sound. They are not (or no longer) coming over in over populated rafts and small boats, or marching countless miles to reach us. Canada, with all its talk of welcoming refugees, could usually put a cap on how many and when they would accept them.
Asylum seekers taking advantage of the loop hole in the first safe country agreement (cross illegally and then claim asylum) is what caused the strain. The federal government IMO has handled the situation admirably, however, they do need to start helping the communities more with the cost but it isn't as dire as what either the EU has gone through or even the US at the southern border.
Anything else you hear might just be pre election talk. Trump isn't popular here, so the Federal Liberal government might attempt to make this an election issue claiming the US should no longer be considered a safe country of entry and people can claim asylum in Canada if they come through the US. If a third of asylum seekers are already doing this illegally, might as take away the illegal behaviour. This would be to shore up the minority vote away from the NDP and to divide the Conservatives. It will be a created election issue to distract away from the liberal scandals and show that the conservatives have warts of their own.
It should also be noted that Trump has floated the idea of having the same type of first safe country agreement with Mexico, although selling Mexico as a safe country is a very hard sell.
I'd say the United States doesn't qualify as a safe country considering the President holds rallies where his supporters openly "joke" about shooting migrants on sight and where we have vigilantes openly patrolling the southern border.
Unfortunately - I don't think it matters how healthy or not healthy the children are as a result of their ordeal. As soon as the US government detains and separates a child from its parents, we take FULL responsibility for the health of that child. I haven't read up on this most recent case, but I have read up on the others, and the conditions the children are kept is appalling.
We are responsible for their lives. We're also responsible for their safety, another roll we've abnegated as there has been a spate of sexual violence endured by the children (some by the camp workers, some by other detained children, which is also a meaningless distinction. It's our responsibility to prevent it).
I wake up this morning and check the New York Times and I see the daily news, an article by Bret Stephens with the notable title, Dear Millennials: The Feeling Is Mutual. This is the most prestigious newspaper on the planet, read by millions of people daily, and this is what is on the front page.
Apparently some folks were upset about something Joe Biden said, and based on that, Bret Stephens decides that an entire generation is evil and stupid people--in his own words, "chortling twenty-somethings, who have figured out that, in today’s culture, the quickest way to acquire and exercise power is to take offense." He decides that Biden's critics are nothing more than "partisan haters" who "don’t know the difference between exuberant human warmth and unwarranted sexual advances." He decides that the mere criticism of a politician he happens to support is a problem with "millennial culture" and its "pitiless standards." He decides that the younger generation is marked by "coddled minds and censorious manner and inability to understand the way the world works." He calls us "junior totalitarians."
Because some of us disagreed with his interpretation of a Joe Biden quote.
I find it weird that an article from the New York Times, even one from the opinion section, is willing to complain about people being offended and too quick to judge, and then immediately turn around and use deliberately hateful language to stereotype them. Again, "junior totalitarians?" Seriously? You don't choose words like that by accident; the only purpose of vitriolic language is to throw vitriol at people. And he does it multiple times throughout the article.
Is this what all stereotypes feel like? Because it's getting rather grating. I don't know how other people put up with this kind of stuff.
I'll be honest; I don't like it when people decide to judge entire groups of people based on stupid generalizations or reading social media instead of actually getting to know real people. I mean, I wake up in the morning and the first thing I see is an article calling us petty tyrants. I was born in 1990 and that means I'm a bad person.
I haven't even had breakfast yet and Bret Stephens has already made up his mind about me.
Unfortunately - I don't think it matters how healthy or not healthy the children are as a result of their ordeal. As soon as the US government detains and separates a child from its parents, we take FULL responsibility for the health of that child. I haven't read up on this most recent case, but I have read up on the others, and the conditions the children are kept is appalling.
We are responsible for their lives. We're also responsible for their safety, another roll we've abnegated as there has been a spate of sexual violence endured by the children (some by the camp workers, some by other detained children, which is also a meaningless distinction. It's our responsibility to prevent it).
@Grond0 this would be my view as well to the "well they would have died anyway" argument.
I wake up this morning and check the New York Times and I see the daily news, an article by Bret Stephens with the notable title, Dear Millennials: The Feeling Is Mutual. This is the most prestigious newspaper on the planet, read by millions of people daily, and this is what is on the front page.
Apparently some folks were upset about something Joe Biden said, and based on that, Bret Stephens decides that an entire generation is evil and stupid people--in his own words, "chortling twenty-somethings, who have figured out that, in today’s culture, the quickest way to acquire and exercise power is to take offense." He decides that Biden's critics are nothing more than "partisan haters" who "don’t know the difference between exuberant human warmth and unwarranted sexual advances." He decides that the mere criticism of a politician he happens to support is a problem with "millennial culture" and its "pitiless standards." He decides that the younger generation is marked by "coddled minds and censorious manner and inability to understand the way the world works." He calls us "junior totalitarians."
Because some of us disagreed with his interpretation of a Joe Biden quote.
I find it weird that an article from the New York Times, even one from the opinion section, is willing to complain about people being offended and too quick to judge, and then immediately turn around and use deliberately hateful language to stereotype them. Again, "junior totalitarians?" Seriously? You don't choose words like that by accident; the only purpose of vitriolic language is to throw vitriol at people. And he does it multiple times throughout the article.
Is this what all stereotypes feel like? Because it's getting rather grating. I don't know how other people put up with this kind of stuff.
I'll be honest; I don't like it when people decide to judge entire groups of people based on stupid generalizations or reading social media instead of actually getting to know real people. I mean, I wake up in the morning and the first thing I see is an article calling us petty tyrants. I was born in 1990 and that means I'm a bad person.
I haven't even had breakfast yet and Bret Stephens has already made up his mind about me.
This is completely separate from your point, but Bret Stephens is part of a very lucrative professional conservative splinter group called the "never-Trumpers". For one thing, it's almost all a careerist move for most of them. And they fall into one of two camps: 1.) they start making (and getting paid to make) arguments liberals have been making for decades or 2.) they think they get to decide who the Democrats should pick as their nominee even though they only got to the party 5 minutes ago. But what they ALL do is pretend the GOP and conservatism in the US was perfectly fine until 2016. And despite supposedly viewing Trump as true threat to democracy, they spend most of their time scolding liberals. The people who think the New York Times is some bastion of liberal orthodoxy have clearly never read the weekly inane bullshit that spews forth from the pens of David Brooks, Ross Douhat, and Bret Stephens. But their favorite targets are as predictable as a sunrise in the East. Brooks will blame just about anything on the social changes of the 1960s. Douhat will cry about the loss of religious morals. and Stephens (and really all of them), will harp on young people.
And look, as I've said before, I am basically between generations, and I have no allegiance or particular defensiveness towards millennials, but this nearly constant harping on how lazy and entitled they are is just one never-ending old man yells at cloud situation that has overtaken the entire culture. A culture that has, by and large, been shaped by the baby boomers. Who, rather ironically, were (on a macro level) handed EVERYTHING on a silver platter because of the governmental programs their parents took advantage of after the war. Nothing remotely similar has been handed to the parents of the current generation of young people.
And I'll end by going back to this. Be VERY wary of the fact that all these never-Trump conservatives seem to believe there is only one viable choice to take on Trump (that being Joe Biden). And I like Biden personally. But he is not the man for these times. Not even remotely.
Here is a hell of an important short article in the New Republic from a woman who actually HAD an abortion, and it touches on a few things that I think really get to the crux of the issue. One of course being that, if an abortion is a murder, how can you favor anything less than a murder-like penalty?? Now, these bills DO have this, but not for the women, only for the doctors. Why??
The answer is rather simple, and gets to the heart of the matter. If you don't believe women SHOULD be able to make this choice, there is a better than average chance you don't think they can (or should) make any choice at all. Thus, you will always see the heart of the protest and punishment of the pro-life movement focused on clinics and doctors, who simply MUST be manipulating these meek, mindless women into doing something they don't want to do. But the other is even more simple still. Statistics suggest nearly 25% of adult American women have abortions. And no matter how much of a hardline you take on this issue, NO ONE is actually ready to start imprisoning 1 out of every 4 women they know:
At this point he has more balls than most of the Democratic leadership in the House (which pains me to say). But the main point is this: if people take the time to actually read ANY significant portion of the Mueller report (and I myself admit to only having hard-read about 25-30% of it), it's impossible to come away with any other conclusion than that Trump should absolutely no longer be in office and that the entire second part of it was specifically designed as an impeachment roadmap for Congress, and that Bill Barr turning the Office of the Attorney General into the private defense firm of the President has worked spectacularly even though the blatant corruption is staring everyone in the face.
Also, let me just point out (and I'm specifically looking at Lindsey Graham here) that it is certainly understandable the VAST majority of the public haven't read one word in the report (what percentage of them even read books??) but it is absolutely INEXCUSABLE that ANY member of the House or Senate hasn't read the entirety of a simple 400 page document of this magnitude. None whatsoever.
but it is absolutely INEXCUSABLE that ANY member of the House or Senate hasn't read the entirety of a simple 400 page document of this magnitude. None whatsoever.
They actually have a very good excuse for not reading the report. Barr's hiding it.
If I can be insultingly generalizing:
- Ross Douthat is a bumbler
- Bret Stephens is an idiot
- David Brooks is apparently a reformed psychopath (he just published a book in which he admits, proudly, that at age ~60 he only just realized that the people on the subway around him are all "souls")
BUT, I think you are, in fact, lacking in empathy in painting older folks like Biden with a brush just as broad as the one Stephens used to paint millenials. The simple fact is, there is cultural change going on, and young people are more likely to adopt aggrieved and victimized stances. It's not your fault; my generation started the process, after all.
Biden is an old man and when he speaks to old voters (a.k.a. "voters") he is going to say stuff like "the kids these days be so sensitive!" And the voters, sitting on their plastic-wrapped sofas and entertaining fantasies of rugged individualism (despite having spent a lifetime at jobs that gave them stuff like benefits and pensions and loyalty), will lap it up. How do you think people like Reagan, HW Bush, and Trump got elected? Biden isn't wrong to express such thoughts; he isn't even incorrect. Insensitive, yes; but that's okay.
I'm honestly sympatgetic to Stephens' view. I don't let myself be bothered by "microaggressions;" I don't think a professor should lose his job for participating in our adversarual system of justice; I think a certain amount of unasked-for sexual advances by men is tolerable. Et cetera. One day I'll be the butt of a joke, the old fogey whose insensitivity is amusing, just as my grandparents' benign racism was. Your cultural moment will rise to the fore and shine, while mine will wither and fade. It's just a function of the inevitability of time.
Meanwhile, marginalized aging buffoons like Bret Stephens will get a kick out of Biden's insensitivity (not to mention economic ignorance), and pen florid invectives calling a generation lazy and entitled, because the NYT has to be fair and balanced. Meet it with optimism - it only means that the world is still turning and nuclear war hasn't come yet.
I could take this argument that conservative inclined older white men actually care about a society being overtaken by aggrievement if 99% of the entire conservative platform in this country wasn't centered on pretty much EXCLUSIVELY aggrievement politics. Because it's the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black imaginable. "My tax dollars going to this, why can't those black people follow the cop's instructions, back in my day etc etc etc etc etc). I spend a good part of my work days on the phone. You have any idea how many times a week people THANK me for not having a foreign accent?? As if it was some function of my moral worth or societal value rather than just a cosmic lottery. It's pathetic. And the funny thing is, I GUARANTEE I hear 1000x more foreign accents than they do in a day, and I manage to get through every single one of them without bitching to anyone about it. They don't give a shit about aggrievement. They simply care about being the only ones who are ALLOWED to be aggrieved.
Meanwhile, marginalized aging buffoons like Bret Stephens will get a kick out of Biden's insensitivity (not to mention economic ignorance), and pen florid invectives calling a generation lazy and entitled, because the NYT has to be fair and balanced. Meet it with optimism - it only means that the world is still turning and nuclear war hasn't come yet.
Mind if I ask what generation you are? (I'm a Millennial). I''ll own that I could be completely wrong and biased, but I feel like I've never seen half as many recriminations directed at Generation Xers as is directed at Millennial by those generations that came before.
I understand that this has all broadly happened over and over again, with older generations taking aim at younger generations. Was there a generations that attacked Generation X as consistently and vociferously? If there was, I've never seen it or heard of it.
(What I'm trying to get at here is: The idea that this is all very normal. I'm trying to find precedents to that end. For example, it would be very regularized if, say, the Silent Generation were constantly attacking Generation X. I dont know that to be the case, though).
Meanwhile, marginalized aging buffoons like Bret Stephens will get a kick out of Biden's insensitivity (not to mention economic ignorance), and pen florid invectives calling a generation lazy and entitled, because the NYT has to be fair and balanced. Meet it with optimism - it only means that the world is still turning and nuclear war hasn't come yet.
Mind if I ask what generation you are? (I'm a Millennial). I''ll own that I could be completely wrong and biased, but I feel like I've never seen half as many recriminations directed at Generation Xers as is directed at Millennial by those generations that came before.
I understand that this has all broadly happened over and over again, with older generations taking aim at younger generations. Was there a generations that attacked Generation X as consistently and vociferously? If there was, I've never seen it or heard of it.
It doesn't seem like there was likely because the stereotype about Gen-X was that they were too detached to care about much of anything. And it doesn't hurt that the tech bubble happened when they came of age and the '90s were pretty damn prosperous economically compared to, oh say, 2008 and onward.
So I guess now we should prepare for the argument that military court proceedings are some kind of secret liberal cabal that framed all these soldiers:
Special operations chief Gallagher was reported by his own squad for stabbing a defenseless teenage captive to death, picking off a school-age girl and an old man from a sniper’s roost, and indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine-gun fire
Essentially, Trump is gonna find a group of people akin to Sgt. Barnes from "Platoon" and let them off the hook.
BUT, I think you are, in fact, lacking in empathy in painting older folks like Biden with a brush just as broad as the one Stephens used to paint millenials. The simple fact is, there is cultural change going on, and young people are more likely to adopt aggrieved and victimized stances.
I actually hate it when I see folks painting boomers as politically backward or old cranks--it's the last thing I'd want to do myself. That's no different from stereotyping young folks (and no, "I'm just reacting against people stereotyping me" is not a valid excuse). I do see a greater tendency to be offended about political things among younger folks today; I just don't like seeing it warped into a hideous stereotype about "junior totalitarians."
For what it's worth, I tried to be pretty clear that my issue was with Stephens specifically and stereotyping more generally. I've seen plenty of the same sentiments expressed by people my age as well--this isn't necessarily an "old people" idea.
Meanwhile, marginalized aging buffoons like Bret Stephens will get a kick out of Biden's insensitivity (not to mention economic ignorance), and pen florid invectives calling a generation lazy and entitled, because the NYT has to be fair and balanced. Meet it with optimism - it only means that the world is still turning and nuclear war hasn't come yet.
Mind if I ask what generation you are? (I'm a Millennial). I''ll own that I could be completely wrong and biased, but I feel like I've never seen half as many recriminations directed at Generation Xers as is directed at Millennial by those generations that came before.
I understand that this has all broadly happened over and over again, with older generations taking aim at younger generations. Was there a generations that attacked Generation X as consistently and vociferously? If there was, I've never seen it or heard of it.
(What I'm trying to get at here is: The idea that this is all very normal. I'm trying to find precedents to that end. For example, it would be very regularized if, say, the Silent Generation were constantly attacking Generation X. I dont know that to be the case, though).
I'm Gen X, I don't think we got nearly as much shit as I see thrown at millennials these days.
No one was telling us Gen X killed record players or the sock hop or whatever. Worst I recall was "back in my day, we had to walk to school through the sbow uphill, BOTH ways.". As if kids needed to be slightly tougher. That's about it.
Meanwhile, marginalized aging buffoons like Bret Stephens will get a kick out of Biden's insensitivity (not to mention economic ignorance), and pen florid invectives calling a generation lazy and entitled, because the NYT has to be fair and balanced. Meet it with optimism - it only means that the world is still turning and nuclear war hasn't come yet.
Mind if I ask what generation you are? (I'm a Millennial). I''ll own that I could be completely wrong and biased, but I feel like I've never seen half as many recriminations directed at Generation Xers as is directed at Millennial by those generations that came before.
I understand that this has all broadly happened over and over again, with older generations taking aim at younger generations. Was there a generations that attacked Generation X as consistently and vociferously? If there was, I've never seen it or heard of it.
(What I'm trying to get at here is: The idea that this is all very normal. I'm trying to find precedents to that end. For example, it would be very regularized if, say, the Silent Generation were constantly attacking Generation X. I dont know that to be the case, though).
I'm Gen X, I don't think we got nearly as much shit as I see thrown at millennials these days.
I think the reason for that is the Boomers raised us and they'd have to admit that their parenting skills were for shit. I hear a lot about my generation (Gen-X'ers) being 'Helicopter Parents' but I don't hear anything about Boomers being non-present parents. I'm not the only X'er who basically raised himself. I hear it a lot from folks my age actually...
I think the main reason the anti-millennial sentiment seems stronger than anti-Gen X sentiment is just because social media makes the same type of ageist prejudice more visible. Visibility is the reason a lot of stuff seems more severe these days than it did a few decades before--gun violence would be an excellent example.
I think the main reason the anti-millennial sentiment seems stronger than anti-Gen X sentiment is just because social media makes the same type of ageist prejudice more visible. Visibility is the reason a lot of stuff seems more severe these days than it did a few decades before--gun violence would be an excellent example.
I will say that my experience with training Millenials has led me to believe that their problem solving skills aren't as good as previous generations. Many of them don't even realize that they have a super-computer at their fingertips that gives them a huge edge on what I had at their age. I'm not sure what the reason is, but I suspect that life skills were taught in school back in my day and it just isn't taught anymore. This total focus on STEM has had some bad consequences IMHO...
Yet another loss for Liberals. This time in Australia, last time in France. The sad fact is that Liberal policies are just not popular with regular people. The polls don't accurately reflect this because they basically guilt people into responding against their self-interest. I'm sorry, but once regular, everyday people realize that it's they that have to sacrifice to 'save the planet' and not just the 'super-rich', you can throw the polls out the window. The Green New Deal is a recipe for disaster for Democrats. Mark my words...
Polls (aside from push polls run by some campaigns) aren't designed to guilt people into anything. They are just asking questions and presenting options and the people on the other end of the phone take them down and then they get aggregated. It's not some nefarious subliminal temporary mind-control exercise. Moreover, if people are answering questions a different way than they actually feel, that isn't on the pollster. That means THEY feel inner guilt about their feelings and can't even bring themselves to admit it to a random stranger they are never going to meet. That's a THEM issue, not some guy making $10/hr getting responses from maybe 1 out of 4 people he calls.
I don't know who regular people are, but it sounds an awful lot like the "real America" bullshit the right has been pushing for decades, wherein the only voters that matter do manual labor and live in towns with no more than one stoplight.
Mind if I ask what generation you are? (I'm a Millennial). I''ll own that I could be completely wrong and biased, but I feel like I've never seen half as many recriminations directed at Generation Xers as is directed at Millennial by those generations that came before.
That's literally only because you weren't alive when those recriminations were being directed at the Gen Xers. Trust me, I was there, and you millenials have years of verbal abuse from your elders ahead of you before you will equal the silly attacks that were leveled at us.
Which is not to say it's a competition - it's not. And admittedly the recriminations against millenials are amplified by the internet, which (in BG terms) is a powerful force multiplier. A more powerful one than cable TV, which was used to amplify cultural battles in our time (which was more powerful than broadcast TV, which was more powerful than radio, yadda yadda yadda). The point is, the things you see from your point of view only comprise the things that are visible from your point of view. Which is not everything.
I'm not saying every generation has come down on the following ones in some way. That is trivially true. And I'm not saying each case of it was equal in intensity or something like that. Circumstances change all the time. What I'm saying is, in a very broad sense, you are not special and your point of view is not special. You are not enlightened; you are not going to break the cycle. You are going to come down on the generation that follows you just as earlier ones have come down on you. So what's the point of yelling at your elders that they had it better, and later yelling at your youngers that you had it worse? Is it just about bragging rights?
It doesn't seem like there was likely because the stereotype about Gen-X was that they were too detached to care about much of anything. And it doesn't hurt that the tech bubble happened when they came of age and the '90s were pretty damn prosperous economically compared to, oh say, 2008 and onward.
You are proving my point man. Gen Xers' parents were just starting to think about paying for college on Black Monday in 1987. They were navigating cities in the midst of a crack epidemic, and if you don't know what an epidemic looks like, it's because we haven't had one since then. (In fact we are having another one right now, but it is so diffuse that you barely notice it unless you have been personally affected or you look for news about it.) In 1992 as early Gen Xers were graduating college, there was a recession and home prices declined nationally for the first time in living memory. Getting out of college you might get a corporate job making you someone you and your friends despised; but more likely your job prospects were dim, and by today's standards, staggeringly undiverse. The economy of the 90s was built on technology of the 70s. Gen X had to invent the new economy, technologically and culturally - whipped it up out of thin air, in a way that earlier generations had not.
And for about seven years things were on the upswing, and the last members of Gen X were graduating right around 2000... and walked into the market in the midst of the Dot-Com Bust. And the election was stolen by a backward-thinking con man who sold the country to military industrialists and religious fanatics. And then the twin towers came down, which caused unprecedented economic harm, and enabled the con man's cronies to make an unprecedented power grab, and sent the nation hurtling into debt that no balanced budget could ever hope to undo, and embroiled the country in two wars that created deep scars and led to young soldiers being traumatized to a degree not seen since World War I. And not least, set the stage for the political divisions we are wrestling with to this day. By the time the dust settled, the main employment options were starting a food blog, and making a reality TV show about renovating and flipping houses.
I'm not saying that 2008 didn't suck. I was there; it sucked. I'm just pointing out that 2008 looming so large in your point of view is preventing you from seeing other times and other challenges faced by other people.
I do see a greater tendency to be offended about political things among younger folks today; I just don't like seeing it warped into a hideous stereotype about "junior totalitarians."
Well the "junior totalitarians" thing is idiotic. Offensive too, I guess, but really its idiocy overshadows its offensiveness.
But another thing Gen Xers grew up with was the rise of the super-litigious society. I think we are the first generation that, driving, internalized the fear that if you ever get into a fender-bender, the other driver will shout "whiplash!" and don a neck brace and financially ruin you. (That actually happened to me - a guy who hit me sued me. Luckily, the suit was thrown out.) Seeing young kids with a hair trigger for taking offense brings that fear to the fore and presents the specter of society en masse giving up on concepts like honor and resilience. Instead we'll all walk around wearing big signs explaining all the ways our skin or sex or home etc. make us victims. Signs, and neck braces.
I don't think that's actually going to happen; like I say, it's a specter. But some of the stories in the news give shape to that specter. And then jumpy farts like Bret Stephens freak out about it.
Yeah, $2 billion to a couple who may or not have gotten cancer from Round-Up has the hairs on my neck standing up. You're spot-on about lawyers. I can't wholeheartedly agree with you about 'W' but I don't think he was a great President by any means. That quote comparing Iraq to WW1 is a bit over-the-top though considering that the total amount of Americans affected by the Great War were in the 100's of thousands while those affected by Iraq were in the thousands. Not a fair comparison...
Polls (aside from push polls run by some campaigns) aren't designed to guilt people into anything. They are just asking questions and presenting options and the people on the other end of the phone take them down and then they get aggregated. It's not some nefarious subliminal temporary mind-control exercise. Moreover, if people are answering questions a different way than they actually feel, that isn't on the pollster. That means THEY feel inner guilt about their feelings and can't even bring themselves to admit it to a random stranger they are never going to meet. That's a THEM issue, not some guy making $10/hr getting responses from maybe 1 out of 4 people he calls.
I don't know who regular people are, but it sounds an awful lot like the "real America" bullshit the right has been pushing for decades, wherein the only voters that matter do manual labor and live in towns with no more than one stoplight.
You know as well as I do that polls are framed to get the responses they want. There are no polls that can predict elections anymore because of that very fact. There's nobody looking over your shoulder and judging you when you actually fill in that circle on the ballot.
Comments
It's a pretty strong statement to say they would all have died regardless. People die all the time, so in any group of thousands you're going to get the odd death. However, in a situation where people are being held in poor conditions, not provided with adequate nutrition and agencies like the Red Cross are not allowed to monitor their health it seems to me highly likely that the chances of death were higher than they could have been (and in my view should have been).
But in all 4 cases, it's not like the kid was healthy when they were in the US custody and then fell sick. It's the reverse.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/migrant-caravan-children-getting-sick_n_5bda65fee4b0da7bfc16f83f
It is estimated half of the 4000 person caravan were/are children. 4 kids out of roughly 2000 IMO is miraculous IMO if you read the above article and what the caravan had to go through to reach the US.
This last case, the child wasn't even separated from his family. He was taken to get medical treatment.
From the article:
A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official familiar with the case told CBS News the family encountered Border Patrol agents at Paso Del Norte Bridge on April 3. On April 6, the mother was advised the child was ill and the child was transported to a nearby hospital. A day later, the child was transported to a children's hospital. The family was given a notice to appear in court and was released on their own recognizance April 8.
The Guatemalan Consular General in El Paso, Tekandi Paniagua, said the child died Wednesday. The mother is still in El Paso but is not in custody.
Neither the mother nor the child were in custody when he died. They weren't separated by force and separation, what @smeagolheart called genocide, was not the cause of any of these kids dying.
@deltago I agree with you about this case - from the reporting it does not look like either the separation policy or treatment by the Border Patrol were significant factors in the death. However, I don't agree that applies to all the earlier cases.
I heard a report on the radio this morning about increasing calls in Canada to review the existing agreement with the US providing that both countries will be classed as 'safe' for transfer of would be migrants - that's been prompted by the state of asylum seekers who have been through the US system before moving on to Canada, as well as the policy of family separation. The report said that immigration is becoming a hotter topic of discussion in Canada - is that something you agree with?
Yes and no.
Canada does/did have an immigration crisis of its own as people travel to the US on visiting visas and then cross into Canada illegally to seek asylum and it is putting a financial strain on cities and communities affected by it. It is this financial strain that has most people concerned IMO.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-opens-800-beds-for-asylum-seekers-asks-for-millions-in-provincial-federal-help-1.3944406
It's more of a logistics issue with the federal government sitting on their hands than a racial one as Canadian cities (especially Toronto) are multicultural and IMO are more tolerant and accepting to other ethnicities. Although racism does still exist.
Granted Canada borders three oceans and only one other large country. The "First Safe Country" agreement was to prevent asylum seekers from "shopping" countries and Canada benefited from that agreement tremendously as those who make it to our country are usually financially sound. They are not (or no longer) coming over in over populated rafts and small boats, or marching countless miles to reach us. Canada, with all its talk of welcoming refugees, could usually put a cap on how many and when they would accept them.
Asylum seekers taking advantage of the loop hole in the first safe country agreement (cross illegally and then claim asylum) is what caused the strain. The federal government IMO has handled the situation admirably, however, they do need to start helping the communities more with the cost but it isn't as dire as what either the EU has gone through or even the US at the southern border.
Anything else you hear might just be pre election talk. Trump isn't popular here, so the Federal Liberal government might attempt to make this an election issue claiming the US should no longer be considered a safe country of entry and people can claim asylum in Canada if they come through the US. If a third of asylum seekers are already doing this illegally, might as take away the illegal behaviour. This would be to shore up the minority vote away from the NDP and to divide the Conservatives. It will be a created election issue to distract away from the liberal scandals and show that the conservatives have warts of their own.
It should also be noted that Trump has floated the idea of having the same type of first safe country agreement with Mexico, although selling Mexico as a safe country is a very hard sell.
We are responsible for their lives. We're also responsible for their safety, another roll we've abnegated as there has been a spate of sexual violence endured by the children (some by the camp workers, some by other detained children, which is also a meaningless distinction. It's our responsibility to prevent it).
I wake up this morning and check the New York Times and I see the daily news, an article by Bret Stephens with the notable title, Dear Millennials: The Feeling Is Mutual. This is the most prestigious newspaper on the planet, read by millions of people daily, and this is what is on the front page.
Apparently some folks were upset about something Joe Biden said, and based on that, Bret Stephens decides that an entire generation is evil and stupid people--in his own words, "chortling twenty-somethings, who have figured out that, in today’s culture, the quickest way to acquire and exercise power is to take offense." He decides that Biden's critics are nothing more than "partisan haters" who "don’t know the difference between exuberant human warmth and unwarranted sexual advances." He decides that the mere criticism of a politician he happens to support is a problem with "millennial culture" and its "pitiless standards." He decides that the younger generation is marked by "coddled minds and censorious manner and inability to understand the way the world works." He calls us "junior totalitarians."
Because some of us disagreed with his interpretation of a Joe Biden quote.
I find it weird that an article from the New York Times, even one from the opinion section, is willing to complain about people being offended and too quick to judge, and then immediately turn around and use deliberately hateful language to stereotype them. Again, "junior totalitarians?" Seriously? You don't choose words like that by accident; the only purpose of vitriolic language is to throw vitriol at people. And he does it multiple times throughout the article.
Is this what all stereotypes feel like? Because it's getting rather grating. I don't know how other people put up with this kind of stuff.
I'll be honest; I don't like it when people decide to judge entire groups of people based on stupid generalizations or reading social media instead of actually getting to know real people. I mean, I wake up in the morning and the first thing I see is an article calling us petty tyrants. I was born in 1990 and that means I'm a bad person.
I haven't even had breakfast yet and Bret Stephens has already made up his mind about me.
@Grond0 this would be my view as well to the "well they would have died anyway" argument.
This is completely separate from your point, but Bret Stephens is part of a very lucrative professional conservative splinter group called the "never-Trumpers". For one thing, it's almost all a careerist move for most of them. And they fall into one of two camps: 1.) they start making (and getting paid to make) arguments liberals have been making for decades or 2.) they think they get to decide who the Democrats should pick as their nominee even though they only got to the party 5 minutes ago. But what they ALL do is pretend the GOP and conservatism in the US was perfectly fine until 2016. And despite supposedly viewing Trump as true threat to democracy, they spend most of their time scolding liberals. The people who think the New York Times is some bastion of liberal orthodoxy have clearly never read the weekly inane bullshit that spews forth from the pens of David Brooks, Ross Douhat, and Bret Stephens. But their favorite targets are as predictable as a sunrise in the East. Brooks will blame just about anything on the social changes of the 1960s. Douhat will cry about the loss of religious morals. and Stephens (and really all of them), will harp on young people.
And look, as I've said before, I am basically between generations, and I have no allegiance or particular defensiveness towards millennials, but this nearly constant harping on how lazy and entitled they are is just one never-ending old man yells at cloud situation that has overtaken the entire culture. A culture that has, by and large, been shaped by the baby boomers. Who, rather ironically, were (on a macro level) handed EVERYTHING on a silver platter because of the governmental programs their parents took advantage of after the war. Nothing remotely similar has been handed to the parents of the current generation of young people.
And I'll end by going back to this. Be VERY wary of the fact that all these never-Trump conservatives seem to believe there is only one viable choice to take on Trump (that being Joe Biden). And I like Biden personally. But he is not the man for these times. Not even remotely.
The answer is rather simple, and gets to the heart of the matter. If you don't believe women SHOULD be able to make this choice, there is a better than average chance you don't think they can (or should) make any choice at all. Thus, you will always see the heart of the protest and punishment of the pro-life movement focused on clinics and doctors, who simply MUST be manipulating these meek, mindless women into doing something they don't want to do. But the other is even more simple still. Statistics suggest nearly 25% of adult American women have abortions. And no matter how much of a hardline you take on this issue, NO ONE is actually ready to start imprisoning 1 out of every 4 women they know:
https://newrepublic.com/article/153921/arrest-me-alabama-anti-abortion-cowards
The whole thread is worth reading.
At this point he has more balls than most of the Democratic leadership in the House (which pains me to say). But the main point is this: if people take the time to actually read ANY significant portion of the Mueller report (and I myself admit to only having hard-read about 25-30% of it), it's impossible to come away with any other conclusion than that Trump should absolutely no longer be in office and that the entire second part of it was specifically designed as an impeachment roadmap for Congress, and that Bill Barr turning the Office of the Attorney General into the private defense firm of the President has worked spectacularly even though the blatant corruption is staring everyone in the face.
Also, let me just point out (and I'm specifically looking at Lindsey Graham here) that it is certainly understandable the VAST majority of the public haven't read one word in the report (what percentage of them even read books??) but it is absolutely INEXCUSABLE that ANY member of the House or Senate hasn't read the entirety of a simple 400 page document of this magnitude. None whatsoever.
They actually have a very good excuse for not reading the report. Barr's hiding it.
I could take this argument that conservative inclined older white men actually care about a society being overtaken by aggrievement if 99% of the entire conservative platform in this country wasn't centered on pretty much EXCLUSIVELY aggrievement politics. Because it's the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black imaginable. "My tax dollars going to this, why can't those black people follow the cop's instructions, back in my day etc etc etc etc etc). I spend a good part of my work days on the phone. You have any idea how many times a week people THANK me for not having a foreign accent?? As if it was some function of my moral worth or societal value rather than just a cosmic lottery. It's pathetic. And the funny thing is, I GUARANTEE I hear 1000x more foreign accents than they do in a day, and I manage to get through every single one of them without bitching to anyone about it. They don't give a shit about aggrievement. They simply care about being the only ones who are ALLOWED to be aggrieved.
Mind if I ask what generation you are? (I'm a Millennial). I''ll own that I could be completely wrong and biased, but I feel like I've never seen half as many recriminations directed at Generation Xers as is directed at Millennial by those generations that came before.
I understand that this has all broadly happened over and over again, with older generations taking aim at younger generations. Was there a generations that attacked Generation X as consistently and vociferously? If there was, I've never seen it or heard of it.
(What I'm trying to get at here is: The idea that this is all very normal. I'm trying to find precedents to that end. For example, it would be very regularized if, say, the Silent Generation were constantly attacking Generation X. I dont know that to be the case, though).
It doesn't seem like there was likely because the stereotype about Gen-X was that they were too detached to care about much of anything. And it doesn't hurt that the tech bubble happened when they came of age and the '90s were pretty damn prosperous economically compared to, oh say, 2008 and onward.
One of those being considered did this:
Special operations chief Gallagher was reported by his own squad for stabbing a defenseless teenage captive to death, picking off a school-age girl and an old man from a sniper’s roost, and indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine-gun fire
Essentially, Trump is gonna find a group of people akin to Sgt. Barnes from "Platoon" and let them off the hook.
For what it's worth, I tried to be pretty clear that my issue was with Stephens specifically and stereotyping more generally. I've seen plenty of the same sentiments expressed by people my age as well--this isn't necessarily an "old people" idea.
I'm Gen X, I don't think we got nearly as much shit as I see thrown at millennials these days.
No one was telling us Gen X killed record players or the sock hop or whatever. Worst I recall was "back in my day, we had to walk to school through the sbow uphill, BOTH ways.". As if kids needed to be slightly tougher. That's about it.
I think the reason for that is the Boomers raised us and they'd have to admit that their parenting skills were for shit. I hear a lot about my generation (Gen-X'ers) being 'Helicopter Parents' but I don't hear anything about Boomers being non-present parents. I'm not the only X'er who basically raised himself. I hear it a lot from folks my age actually...
I will say that my experience with training Millenials has led me to believe that their problem solving skills aren't as good as previous generations. Many of them don't even realize that they have a super-computer at their fingertips that gives them a huge edge on what I had at their age. I'm not sure what the reason is, but I suspect that life skills were taught in school back in my day and it just isn't taught anymore. This total focus on STEM has had some bad consequences IMHO...
Yet another loss for Liberals. This time in Australia, last time in France. The sad fact is that Liberal policies are just not popular with regular people. The polls don't accurately reflect this because they basically guilt people into responding against their self-interest. I'm sorry, but once regular, everyday people realize that it's they that have to sacrifice to 'save the planet' and not just the 'super-rich', you can throw the polls out the window. The Green New Deal is a recipe for disaster for Democrats. Mark my words...
I don't know who regular people are, but it sounds an awful lot like the "real America" bullshit the right has been pushing for decades, wherein the only voters that matter do manual labor and live in towns with no more than one stoplight.
Yeah, $2 billion to a couple who may or not have gotten cancer from Round-Up has the hairs on my neck standing up. You're spot-on about lawyers. I can't wholeheartedly agree with you about 'W' but I don't think he was a great President by any means. That quote comparing Iraq to WW1 is a bit over-the-top though considering that the total amount of Americans affected by the Great War were in the 100's of thousands while those affected by Iraq were in the thousands. Not a fair comparison...
You know as well as I do that polls are framed to get the responses they want. There are no polls that can predict elections anymore because of that very fact. There's nobody looking over your shoulder and judging you when you actually fill in that circle on the ballot.