[barmar]

 billw55, on 2013-June-19, 06:11, said:

I get most of what you are saying, but not sure I understand the bit about vouchers. What voucher programs are restricted by race? Can't black kids get a voucher just as easily as white kids?

Maybe they can, but they don't. White parents are probably more motivated to seek out the vouchers, because they fear integration. For black parents, a school with lots of black kids matches the community they likely live in, so they don't feel as much need to get their kids out of there.

[onoway]

 dwar0123, on 2013-June-18, 18:33, said:

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

Among those things, what are the things you believe you should still be able to do?

Fill this out for me.

First list:
Smoke in restaurants
States outlawing interracial marriage
Discriminate based on sexual orientation
(add more examples)

Second list:
(add more examples)

http://www.brennance...-it-harder-vote

http://www.globalres...h-products/8850 The bill did not pass but Health Canada has simply silently banned literally thousands of products anyway, forcing people to choose between big pharma or nothing

http://www.voanews.c...124/170413.html
That may be Hungary but shades of the same thing is now seen with Harper in Canada restricting access to information, even in the face of Freedom of Information Act which is (at least sometimes) simply ignored. We have also recently had amendments to bills passed which makes the parameters of the information legally available so extreme that it's virtually the same as denying access.

Again in Canada, throwing everything but the kitchen sink into huge omnibus bills which are then pushed through without time for much debate or discussion so the opposition is made incapable of doing its job and the public is left largely in the dark exactly what just got passed into law.

ww.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/

I would have thought the spying and collecting of information by governments on private citizens without any sort of reason or warrant being needed or even considered need not be pointed out, although that's perhaps the biggest one.

I can't prove it, but I tend to think that 40 years ago (your time frame) there would have been outrage and utter disbelief that the US was not only condoning but using torture as a means to gather information and were keeping people in jails indefinitely without charges or an opportunity to defend themselves meaningfully.

Will those do for a start or do you need more?

[ArtK78]

I know the main thing that has happened since 1963 is that I am 50 years older. I was in second grade on November 22, 1963, the day that JFK was shot.

1963 was the cold war, the assassination of JFK and the end of Camelot, the beginning of the height of the civil rights movement, the war in Vietnam, and many other issues that have shaped where we are today. What was not known by the populace was the extent to which the FBI was already snooping on our day-to-day lives, under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover. Can you imagine what J. Edgar would be up to if he had access to today's technology?

[dwar0123]

 onoway, on 2013-June-19, 12:29, said:

ww.brennancenter.org/analysis/2013-voting-law-changes-legislation-making-it-harder-vote

http://www.globalres...h-products/8850 The bill did not pass but Health Canada has simply silently banned literally thousands of products anyway, forcing people to choose between big pharma or nothing

http://www.voanews.c...124/170413.html
That may be Hungary but shades of the same thing is now seen with Harper in Canada restricting access to information, even in the face of Freedom of Information Act which is (at least sometimes) simply ignored. We have also recently had amendments to bills passed which makes the parameters of the information legally available so extreme that it's virtually the same as denying access.

Again in Canada, throwing everything but the kitchen sink into huge omnibus bills which are then pushed through without time for much debate or discussion so the opposition is made incapable of doing its job and the public is left largely in the dark exactly what just got passed into law.

ww.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/

I would have thought the spying and collecting of information by governments on private citizens without any sort of reason or warrant being needed or even considered need not be pointed out, although that's perhaps the biggest one.

I can't prove it, but I tend to think that 40 years ago (your time frame) there would have been outrage and utter disbelief that the US was not only condoning but using torture as a means to gather information and were keeping people in jails indefinitely without charges or an opportunity to defend themselves meaningfully.

Will those do for a start or do you need more?

2013-1963=50

Who ever you presume is speaking for the US in condoning the use of torture does not actually speak for the US and sadly the use of torture isn't new.

As to Gitmo, a very disturbing issue to which I strongly oppose, it however doesn't restrict any liberties of any citizens of this country.

I am not entirely sure what the NSA is collecting, the most believable reports suggest it is limited to meta-data, but I am pretty sure they would have collected it, and far more, 50 years ago under J. Edgar Hoover. What changed here is not so much about what the government is collecting but what technology is allowing it to collect.

Canada is not the USA.

Considering the state of voting rights in the 1960's, I wouldn't really advance the notion that the suggested voting right changes are really an infringement on civil liberties that tarnish the glorious 1960's.

[mycroft]

Of course, in the best schools, the voucher pays for all of the education, right?

So the schools you can get in with money and a voucher vs the schools you can get in with just the voucher...probably look a lot like the schools you used to be able to get in in a well-off neighbourhood vs the ones you could get in in a poorer neighbourhood.

Now, I realize that well-off/poor and white/black don't match exactly, but (especially with redlining and "oh, we don't really want you here") it *was* a good match, and the correlation (at least for those who don't feel their children should be associating with "those types" and those who are "I Got Mine, Jack" and don't care what happens to anyone else as long as their children get an acceptable level of education) is still better than zero (and "those types" who have enough money to join them aren't really "those types", right?)

Having said that, I think that between Terry Stops, Hiibel identity requirements, the TSA, the Customs "we can search anyone for any reason at or near a border" (100 miles from any possible entry point, including all the seacoast and international airports), and the various wiretapping schemes and other end-runs around the fourth amendment, if you described modern U.S. life (especially modern U.S. life for an urban non-white) to someone from 1963 (albeit, someone white, I guess), you'd get "yep, those G-D Commies. Aren't you glad you live in a Free Country?"

[ArtK78]

Unless I am mistaken (and that happens occasionally), the US Supreme Court has sanctioned searches of anyone at or near a border crossing on the grounds of national security. Essentially, by crossing a national border, one consents to such searches.

As for "near a border," that is a much grayer area. It might still fall within the scope of national security, but the argument that one consents to such searches by being near a national border is not as good as the argument for consent by crossing the border.

I don't have a citation to this statement - it is something that I recall from law school. Then again, it has been a long time since law school. As a tax lawyer, I don't run into these issues very often.

[FM75]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-19, 00:54, said:

Oh a Poll Tax? What a good idea. But Britain got there first - it was one of the leading factors in the fall of Mrs Thatcher and that scheme was considerably less radical than what you want to see. It does not work - give it up. All you are doing is giving millions of Americans an incentive not to go to work or to leave the country or to riot.

Poll tax?!

Absolutely not. You did not read carefully. Voting would be free. Living in the US would not be (for anybody except minors). Voting by the poor would logically be expected to rise to keep their taxes affordable. And as a result, since they are a majority (more are below median income than above), government spending would be forced down to affordable levels - just like before 1913.

[blackshoe]

 ArtK78, on 2013-June-19, 14:48, said:

Unless I am mistaken (and that happens occasionally), the US Supreme Court has sanctioned searches of anyone at or near a border crossing on the grounds of national security. Essentially, by crossing a national border, one consents to such searches.

As for "near a border," that is a much grayer area. It might still fall within the scope of national security, but the argument that one consents to such searches by being near a national border is not as good as the argument for consent by crossing the border.

I don't have a citation to this statement - it is something that I recall from law school. Then again, it has been a long time since law school. As a tax lawyer, I don't run into these issues very often.

I wonder. I live near Rochester, NY. I'm south of Lake Ontario. The border is in the middle of the lake (I don't know how far it is from here). I'm also about 60 or 70 miles east of Niagara Falls. Am I subject to these searches? In my house? In my car? If so, I think the "national security" argument is a bunch of crap. What about the folks who live or work "right up the street" from a border crossing?

As for invoking "national security" as justification for doing whatever, I remember a Navy LT who, while he was working for the NSA, I met at a computer conference about 30 years ago. On the subject of computer security he said "if we had our way, there wouldn't be any users!"

Where in the Constitution does it say that "national security" trumps the Bill of Rights?

[ArtK78]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-19, 16:21, said:

I wonder. I live near Rochester, NY. I'm south of Lake Ontario. The border is in the middle of the lake (I don't know how far it is from here). I'm also about 60 or 70 miles east of Niagara Falls. Am I subject to these searches? In my house? In my car? If so, I think the "national security" argument is a bunch of crap. What about the folks who live or work "right up the street" from a border crossing?

As for invoking "national security" as justification for doing whatever, I remember a Navy LT who, while he was working for the NSA, I met at a computer conference about 30 years ago. On the subject of computer security he said "if we had our way, there wouldn't be any users!"

Where in the Constitution does it say that "national security" trumps the Bill of Rights?

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..." I don't see anything about protecting the right of the people against reasonable searches at or near a border crossing.

Really, that is the crux of the matter. Searches at border crossings are per se reasonable. Of course, the further away from a border crossing one is, the weaker that argument becomes.

As I said in my prior post, a condition to be permitted to enter the country (or, for that matter, to leave the country) is to consent to such searches as are deemed reasonable by the government in the interests of national security. Now, I admit that I just made up that language, but I am sure there is precedent for that conclusion.

[kenberg]

 dwar0123, on 2013-June-18, 18:33, said:

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

I will ask my wife if she has any thoughts on this.

[blackshoe]

 ArtK78, on 2013-June-19, 16:34, said:

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..." I don't see anything about protecting the right of the people against reasonable searches at or near a border crossing.

Really, that is the crux of the matter. Searches at border crossings are per se reasonable. Of course, the further away from a border crossing one is, the weaker that argument becomes.

As I said in my prior post, a condition to be permitted to enter the country (or, for that matter, to leave the country) is to consent to such searches as are deemed reasonable by the government in the interests of national security. Now, I admit that I just made up that language, but I am sure there is precedent for that conclusion.

It is indeed the crux of the matter. Searches of people crossing the border are per se reasonable. Searching people who just happen to be in the area may or may not be reasonable. I'm not saying all such searches are unreasonable, I'm saying that showing such a search is reasonable requires more than just invoking "national security".

[FM75]

 ArtK78, on 2013-June-19, 16:34, said:

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..." I don't see anything about protecting the right of the people against reasonable searches at or near a border crossing.

Really, that is the crux of the matter. Searches at border crossings are per se reasonable. Of course, the further away from a border crossing one is, the weaker that argument becomes.

As I said in my prior post, a condition to be permitted to enter the country (or, for that matter, to leave the country) is to consent to such searches as are deemed reasonable by the government in the interests of national security. Now, I admit that I just made up that language, but I am sure there is precedent for that conclusion.

So what constitutes "near a border crossing"? When the 4th amendment was written the fastest form of human travel was horseback and a fast full day's travel across a border might get you 100 miles into the country. Of course in many areas, you might never be detected the first day.

Today, if you fly in low enough to avoid radar (say a few hundred feet up), you could easily land 1000 miles from the border in a single engine small private plane. Yes, you would be violating the requirement to land at the nearest international airport with customs inspections. One day later, you could be anywhere (not including Hawaii.), including out of the country again.

[Zelandakh]

 FM75, on 2013-June-19, 15:38, said:

Poll tax?!

Absolutely not. You did not read carefully. Voting would be free.

I read carefully enough thanks and you have written this sh!te before. Voting in Britain under the poll tax was free. Having your name known by the authorities, and therefore on the electoral register, was not. The tax was not a flat tax across the board - no sane person would even consider such a thing because it is completely bonkers. In order to make even this watered-down version of your idea slightly workable, there were various exclusion groups that only had to pay 20% of the lowest rate. In practise, even that was impossible. Quite simply, yours is one of the worst ideas for a change to the tax code that could ever be devised; and it even makes Thatcher's Poll Tax look good!

[Winstonm]

Quote

dwar0123, on 2013-June-18, 20:33, said:
What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

Smoke in restaurants
Use aerosol sprays
Run behind DDT trucks
Fear a US/USSR nuclear war
Pray in school
Look up at the moon and wonder if many will ever fly into space and back again
Use leaded gasoline
Buy corn without worrying about genetic modification
Fly TWA
Wear your shoes at all times in an airport
Watch a new episode of Gunsmoke on black and white TV.

[barmar]

 onoway, on 2013-June-19, 12:29, said:

http://www.voanews.c...124/170413.html
That may be Hungary but shades of the same thing is now seen with Harper in Canada restricting access to information, even in the face of Freedom of Information Act which is (at least sometimes) simply ignored. We have also recently had amendments to bills passed which makes the parameters of the information legally available so extreme that it's virtually the same as denying access.

The FOIA in Canada only dates to 1983. I'll bet that compared to 1963 you still have far more access, even if they've been adding exceptions.

Although I suppose it could seem as if access is denied if anything you actually might really care about is restricted.

[billw55]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-20, 02:00, said:

I read carefully enough thanks and you have written this sh!te before. Voting in Britain under the poll tax was free. Having your name known by the authorities, and therefore on the electoral register, was not. The tax was not a flat tax across the board - no sane person would even consider such a thing because it is completely bonkers. In order to make even this watered-down version of your idea slightly workable, there were various exclusion groups that only had to pay 20% of the lowest rate. In practise, even that was impossible. Quite simply, yours is one of the worst ideas for a change to the tax code that could ever be devised; and it even makes Thatcher's Poll Tax look good!

I think he's just trolling Zel.

[mike777]

Same old discussion do you want to have economic power in the same political hand.

If yes then that is one form of govt.

If you believe that the central govt is better at allocating capital....than other options....

do you look at the central govt as the controlling source of economic, social order.

If so do you believe that leads to a fascist govt?

OTOH if you believe that leads to utopia or something close...you have a discussion
------------


IN this and many other posts I have made an argument to give glory/praise for risk taking entreprenuers(sp?), but many think this is close to evil.

I do indeed fear having economic and political power in the same pair of hands.

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2013-June-21, 00:51, said:

In this and many other posts I have made an argument to give glory/praise for risk taking entrepreneurship but many think this is close to evil.

Mike, you would get farther with this, at least with me, if you refined it a bit. Like many or most males, I did a fair amount of (mostly physical) risk taking while I was young. Physical or financial, it can be pretty stupid. Not evil, not evil at all, just stupid. And some of it can be evil. Selling heroin, for example. Long run probably it is also stupid, but evil from the get-go. There are many things of lessor evil, perhaps, but still; not what I would call praiseworthy either.. As I understand it there is quite a business in buying up patents and suing people. The buyer of the patent does not at all intend to produce anything, he just hopes that the patent office has carelessly granted a poorly phrased application and that this can be used to hassle an honest innovator. I gather this practice is successful enough to cause concern. If we could make the practice less lucrative, I think that would be good.

I value the freedom to choose my own path in life. As I tell it, with little or no exaggeration, I came home from high school one day and announced I had decided to go to college. My mother had seen it coming, my father could not imagine why I would want to do such a thing. But here is the kicker. I got a scholarship. It helped. It helped a lot. Freedom is great, but people can also, at times, use a helping hand.

I have no desire at all for stopping a guy from starting a start-up. Go for it. But I think even Darwin advocated going easy on Darwinianism.

Liberals as more risk-averse than conservatives does not jibe with my experience.

[Winstonm]

Adding to Ken's reply, modern research has shown the conservative mind to be risk adverse and security orientated. Liberals tend to be much more comfortable with change and the risk that change entails. This explains the differences.

Quote

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions.

Anxiety about communism drove many basically good people who were born with conservative inclinations to act in a fashion that can only be described as disingenuous when the story about defense of the tobacco, aerosol, coal, and energy industries is understood. (A small group of free marketers, staring with the Reagan administration, promoted and propagandized a wait-and-see approach instead of action on what was known to be settled science.)

A similar fear may induce a narrative-based worldview where everything is divided into black and white, us versus them, and all we have to do is choose the right path to avoid misery.

But from my understanding of history, unbridled capitalism can be as horrific to humans as unbridled socialism, and to reduce man's motivations to a mechanical binary code is too simplistic of answer for a complex biological being.

[billw55]

I dont think anyone was "born with conservative inclinations"