Have I mentioned lately how glad I am that I'm not a Euro??

A couple points. Using Switzerland as an example of European immigration policies is very selective. Germany, for example, has a higher net migration rate than the US. I haven't looked at them all, but to focus on one relatively small country seems a little unfair.

On socialism. Socialism is one of those words that means many different things to different people. The site that you found is not the site that represents the socialism Dimsie speaks of, (assuming that you are a supporter of the New Zealand Labour Party Dimsie). Search National Socialism and you will come up with something entirely different again. The NZLP and many other Democratic Socialist parties in the west and around the world belong to the Socialist International, (not the International Socialist Organisation). One member of this group is America's best friend in Europe Tony Blair and his governing Labour Party in the UK, hardly an anti-capitalist lot. In fact, most socialists are strongly in favour of capitalism, healthy capitalism, and focus more on ensuring that there is a good social and environmental safety net and framework for capitalism to exist in.

Here's their page. http://www.socialistinternational.org/main.html This is the organisation that Canada's Democratic Socialist party, the New Democratic Party, belongs to too. I don't know much about the international organisation, as I believe that the NDP has only a lose connection, but Canadian socialists are nothing like what I see on that ISO site … nor is like National Socialism or any other extreme group with the label "socialism." It is DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, which is really very much like American liberalism.

 

Grizzled,

Seems like the immigration rates for Switzerland, Denmark and Finland are significantly lower than the US and the other countries (Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Australia and Canada) are equal to or greater than the US. Naturalisation for people of the <i>wrong ancestry</i> is likely more difficult in Austria and Germany than in the US.

Since you have joined this discussion could you answer a question or two that nobody else answers?

Looking at the bottom of this page:
<A HREF="http://www.geohive.com/cd/sz.php">Switzerland Population Statisitics</A>

Berne and Zurcih have had negative population growth over the past two decades and Geneva has had an increase of roughly 20,000. If things are so superior in those three cities, it seems that there would be significant population increases rather than declines or marginal population growth. Also, wouldn't it be more likely that services and other <i>quality of life</i> factors would be kept at good levels if minimal or negative growth had to be accommodated for rather than significant growth?


Mango

 

HS I agree with you no scientist working on these issues is totally immune from political pressures, but I think there is no comparison of the scientific freedom associated with fed grant funded research relative to industry contracts (I have outlined the reasons earlier in the thread). Not perfect, neither is peer-review by a long shot as you present a case of, but it is not remotely equivalent to the direct control and manipulation of industry funded information.

I still don't fully agree with your 2nd argument. When I have seen Nicoderm or whatever in the grocery store aisle it ain't cheap. If they could market it as a AD or PD fighter they would. Just look at the marketing of dietary supplements--anything with a sliver of success is marketed to fight one ailment or another. It is sad because it obfuscates what truly looks promising.

 

From what I've heard, Switzerland is a bit of an odd place. They were neutral in WWII and previous conflicts and have always acted like kind of an island. No enemies, no friends. I have a friend who travelled there to visit her friend who moved there, and her friend was having a hard time fitting in because the people really weren't friendly to her. There was kind of a "Switzerland for the Swiss" attitude. Within the country they are quite multicultural, with several dominant ethnic groups and as many as 5 main languages, but they are all Swiss, and that's what differentiates them I guess. So that may partially explain the low immigration numbers. I think their economy has been strong and they have focussed on keeping it strong (partially through very selective immigration) and so yes, I think that lower level of new infrastructure expenses combined with selective immigration would maintain a high standard of living for those the citizens.

Wholeheartedly agree on all points Max!

 

That is tragic. On the immigration issue though, I honestly think the situation in Europe is different than NA in some fundamental ways. Europe is much more crowded and competitive, and they have much older cultures. I love Denmark, but I was shocked by some of the racism I heard there. It was a different kind of racism though, or so it seemed. They are very tolerant in general, but are very proud of their very old culture and many seemed concerned by other cultural groups moving in and not adapting to the Danish culture. Calgary is not much over 100 years old, and 100 years ago there were 5,000 people living here, so not many of the 1,000,000 current inhabitants can claim a very long history here. The extent of the protective attitude toward their culture the Danes seem to have caught me off guard.

 

Meltdown? Where was that? I've responded in kind to each post and have given reasons why using the Mercer SURVEY is not desirable. In addition, I've given reasons why legitimizing the Mercer Survey is not something consistent with being on the left politically. Its crown jewel of a city is completely antithetical to the politics of the left. It is not an city open to the poor or to those from other cultures. It is not the vision of liberalism that you would expect someone on the left (whether you call yourself a liberal democrat, a socialist, a communist, or an anarchist) to endorse.

And its sad that you draw such racial distinctions on language use. 'Po' folks' is not ebonics. It is a Southern expression. There is even a chain of restaurants of the same name serving cornbread and 'taters (is the phrase 'taters something only blacks say as well?). P Diddy was hardly the first to call a $100 bill a Benjamin. It does, after all, have a picture of Benjamin Franklin on the front.

Uh, who's the hater? Oh, no wait, let me translate that back into whitespeak, as I wouldn't want to sound like a black man. I am white after all. In this particular thread I have had two civil discourses with other posters, Grizzled and Desert Scar. I have no reason to believe they 'hate' me. Nor quite a few others on the board, many of whom I backchannel with. However, I guess you need to chime in for your honey, er, I mean your partner.

Hey pal, you're the one writing posts that completely reiterate what your girlfriend says with the timing of an echo. Nor am I the one who continues to post after saying I was done with this conversation. Who's obsessing? You can look at my post count and I'm not even in the Top 100 on the board, either in number of posts or posts per day. I don't like the constant harping on how much better Europe or NZ are than the US because I don't happen to think its true.

Besides, I thought you said you were born in Texas:

"Again, I think that most people prefer to live where they were born and raised, so surveys like these probably don't matter. I was born and raised here in Texas, am not a socialist (you can try something else on me, Hayes St.) and I think the US is great."

Then you said...

"...how we should all feel about your poor, misunderstood country?"

Why do you say 'YOUR' country when you are from the US as well? Are you having an identity crisis or are you just trying TOO hard to help your girlfriend out?

What kind of argument is this? I post on the BBS so I'm lonely? You post on the BBS, jackass, are you lonely? I can't imagine how since you and dimsie gotta be sittin' (sorry, sitting) at the same computer.

As I've said before, I don't mind Europe too much. Its got some cool places, and a lot more history than the US. When considering permanent residence, however, I find it less desirable than the US.

Uh, Ok? You just got paged. Bonnie Bramlett's waiting for you in the hotel bar.

Grizzled,

Of course there is no one definition of a 'socialist,' however, I think I've articulated WHY I believe there is a contradiction between saying your philosphical beliefs are far left (dimsie called herself a pinko socialist which is hardly a left of center democrat) and then holding Zurich up as your ideal city. And yes, using Switzerland is not representative of all of Europe, but it is the city at the TOP of the Mercer Survey. Using the survey's prime example to indict its criteria does not seem to be faulty to me.

 

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Generally I would agree I guess. I just have this nagging thought that when there is 100% presumption for one particular sides arguments, we are in trouble.

 

The Hayes St. "please love America" therapy session continues...

It is obvious that you lost your way in this debate when you chose to attack (well, less attack than invent irrelevant straw dogs to knock down) my wife's personal ethics and political views as opposed to the issue of whether this particular survey had *general* merit. And all of this is still besides the point that the survey is only one aspect that *may* refute the notion that the US is the only place in the world to live. As much as you say I parrot my wife's views on this issue (you're right!), you agreed with me earlier about this last point and disagreed with her in a most insulting manner when she gave *the exact same argument*. You made this personal before anyone else did and it *does* make you look rather pathetic. Sorry. It's your life, H Diddy. Want to swap July 4th cards and be friends?

 

Thank you, Grizzled. I had no idea how to bring this issue up without risking being called a 'philosophical grifter with no principles' again...

I'm actually slightly further to the left than Labour - I voted Alliance in the last NZ election, which is a combination of various parties - Maori, Green, other lefties. They formed a coalition with Labour in order to create the current NZ government. But if I was forced to vote Labour it wouldn't kill me.

MadMax, I totally agree with you - for example, Grizzled and I are able to differ on one huge issue, religion, without any problems. However, Grizzled and I don't call each others' very philosophical and political credibility into question when we disagree with each other. My politics *are* something I take very seriously, especially since I don't have a religion (apart from loving the Beatles!). What HS said is like telling me I'm a 'fake Christian' or something. It's really uncool, IMO, as well as being untrue. And, as I keep saying over and over and over, it's not at *all* relevant to the *validity* (if not perfection) of this data - it's a complete straw man.

Look, HayesStreet, I'm not telling you that you lack principles and ethics and are vapid for living in Europe when you clearly prefer the USA, because that would be a ridiculous argument to make. And that's *exactly* how ridiculous - and insulting - your assertions against me are.

Moreover, even if I *was* going to add a few more things to the Mercer survey and compare the Swiss and the USA on how they treat their poor people, which is a good socialist issue which HayesStreet *keeps on mentioning*, the Swiss *do better*. They literally have *no one*, statistically speaking, below the poverty line, and only 1.9% unemployment. The USA has 12.7% of its population living below the poverty line, plus 4% unemployment (these are all 1999 statistics from the CIA world factbook at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/). Now, it's conceivable that this is because of their immigration policy - *but we don't know*. Again, my point in giving this information is to say that I don't accept the Mercer survey as perfect, but I don't think that adding socialist criteria to it would necessarily change the rankings that much, and I don't think that its criteria and socialist principles are necessarily mutually exclusive (although there could be a few dodgy analyses of cities as a result!). It's the only survey I know of to try to do these comparisons, so I brought it up. Oh, would that I had not!

Plus, my *general, overarching, constantly repeated point* (which HayesStreet either agrees with if Elvis says it, or disagrees with if I do!), is that it is possible or even probable that there are lots of places nicer to live in than lots of places in the USA, so dismissing the rest of the world as an inferior dump is really tiresome. That. Is. All.

Sigh.

 

Where did you get that idea?

 

Thank you


Mango

 

It seems I have found a more current article that mentions major reforms in German law effective Januray 2000. I was using sources from the 1990's and didn't realize the change in the law.

<i>Aussiedler</i> used to be an operative word in gaining citizenship in Germany.

<A HREF="http://www.germany-info.org/newcontent/np.bak/np_3c_1.html>Citizenship Reform and Germany's Foreign Residents</A>

<A HREF="http://www.germany-info.org/newcontent/np.bak/np_3c_2.html">Citizenship Reform</A>
<i>...In his first policy statement before the Bundestag (November 1998), Chancellor Gerhard Schröder noted,

For far too long those who have come to work here, who pay their taxes and abide by our laws have been told that they are just 'guests.' But in truth they have for years been part of German society. For this reason, this government will modernize the law on nationality......... </i>


<A HREF="http://www.spaef.com/GPS_PUB/v1n3.html">German Policy Studies/Politikfeldanalyse</A>
<i>....In recent years, issues of an imagined ethno-cultural identity and revived nationalism have received renewed attention in German partisan public discourse. Initially, this came as a shock to both Germans and non-Germans. Both inside and outside of Germany the rise of right-wing partisan rhetoric has evoked fearful memories of the Nazi past. Yet, given the political parties responsible for bringing this nationalist, xenophobic and anti-semitic discourse to the forefront, most notably the Die Republikaner (REP) , Deutsche Volksunion (DVU), and Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD)such reactions should hardly be surprising. The radical right's adherence to racist ideology is both openly xenophobic and anti-Semitic and centers around the threat of elimination of the German kulturnation.</i>

<A HREF="http://www.noborder.org/without/austria.html">Austria article with a pronounced slant to the left</a>

<A HREF="http://www.noborder.org/without/germany.html">Germany article with a pronounced slant to the left</A>

<A HREF="http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/jointsessions/Copenhagen/papers/ws6/day.pdf">Nice article on Germany and Japan</A>


Mango

 

It is correct that it was very easy for "Aussiedler" (people perceived as Germans in foreign countries by looking at their ancestry) to become German citizens. However, you derive the statement from that that it is harder for others to become German citizens than to become U.S. citizens and the articles you posted do not support that point. I believe the statement is incorrect. I think it is similarly difficult to become a German citizen as it is to become a U.S. citizen.

 

Its not this last part that I am opposed to, dimsie. It is not unreasonable to suggest that there are nice places to live outside of the US. However, just a couple of points.

First, why is calling your credibility into doubt out of bounds, or 'uncool?' It seems to me to be 'on face' a relatively short leap in logic to suggest that there is a contradiction between saying you hold 'socialist' beliefs and pushing the Mercer Survey's conclusions as the 'best available evalution' of where to live. I have at least articulated reasons for this apparent contradiction. Had you responded as Grizzled did, explaining how it could be consistent, this thread might have gone a different direction.

Second, both you and Elvis seem to think I've agreed with him and disagreed with you even though you've made 'the same arguments.' I disagree.

This is the statement that Elvis made that I said I 'don't have a problem with...'

Originally posted by Elvis Costello
Again, I think that most people prefer to live where they were born and raised, so surveys like these probably don't matter. I was born and raised here in Texas, am not a socialist (you can try something else on me, Hayes St.) and I think the US is great. That still doesn't mean that it is automatically the best place on earth, or that the entire universe revolves around us.

That is, IMO, similar to your main point, however you also added these gems which make your expressed views decidely different in scope and tone:

--"In fact, most overseas travel insurance costs much more if you're going to the US precisely *because* your health system is so much more f*cked up than most other western countries' systems."

--"By the way, HayesStreet, are you *really* telling Grizzled that the US *isn't* insular? *Really*? That's the most ludicrous f*cking thing I've ever heard on this board, and I was here for the Princess period..."

--"a) Most US citizens never travel overseas, especially not for any length of time, and b) US news and media generally are overwhelmingly US-oriented (or even Houston-oriented like channel 2, 'where local news comes first!') c) The US education system (with the exception of Western Civ. and some other low-level university courses, maybe) is predominantly about American institutions and history, even to the exclusion of other useful information..." (on how stupid Americans are)

--"What on earth makes you think that many or even most US citizens have made informed choices about their own country or have even bothered to compare it with others?"

--"Now, you can reject Mercer's criteria, as HayesStreet has, if it makes you feel better, but frankly this data is on fairly basic things that most human beings would see as important. You know, clean air and health services and housing and safety and all those wacky 'foreign-biased' priorities."

--"The Swiss prefer to have restrictive immigration policies, while the US prefers to concentrate on treating the minorities it already has like crap." (putting a smile after that is disingenuous)

--"Oh, what a load of crap."

--"And if it comes right down to it, all this ethnic diversity you and Mango are trumpeting basically consists, with a few minor exceptions, of people in sprawling segregated neighbourhoods driving SUVs to eat each other's cuisine. People actually have to come face to face with each other far more in New York (the base city for the study) or London. *That's* multiculturalism."

Then again you restate your main point, which is similar to Elvis's original passage:

"It is quite conceivable - even probable - that there are areas in the world that are *much* nicer places to live than vast swathes of the United States, and some of those places might even be in the ever-dreaded Europe, filled with all those annoying 'Euros'. So talking about the entire world as an inferior dump - which is the undertone of much ignorant discourse in this country - can get somewhat tiresome for the rest of us. That's it. That's all. C'est tout."

I did make specific arguments why I felt the Mercer Survey's criteria could not be considered universal, but despite that as Cohen said, this general point is not unreasonable. As I said after this:

Quote from HayesStreet:

And my only point is that talking about the United States as if its the land of demagogues and ignorant hillbillies, who've managed to screw up everything from the environment to the Middle East, while keeping our own black folk in chains, gets a little tiresome for the rest of us. And frankly, I don't give a damn if that gets your knickers in a twist.

Then you escalate, although again failing to point HOW you are NOT holding contradictory positions (as Grizzled did FOR you later):

--"As I said, you obnoxious, hectoring prick, *no f ucking mas*. My philosophical leanings are a) internally consistent b) perfectly defensible and c) actually *irrelevant* to my *point*..."

and

--"I stand by that, and you're unable to refute it in any meaningful way. You are, however, particularly good at obfuscating real issues, going off on ridiculous tangents (you're still peeved about the *racism* threads? *Really*? God that's lame), and amping up the 'arsehole quotient' of any thread in which you participate. Did treeman name you as his rightful successor after he left or something?"

and

--"Since you apparently spend most of your time (including Saturday nights!) in one of the most fun, exciting, and multicultural cities in the world hovering pathetically over a computer b****ing about how awful Europe-at-large is and how much you adore the USA, I suggest that you take me as an example and move back to your homeland ASAP so that you'll be able to stop seething your impotent bile all over the board."

Then I make an attempt to tone down my rhetoric since you are going ape****, saying:

Quote by HS--
"Cool. 'Obnoxious, hectoring prick.' That really kinda flows. Glad you feel better."

and

"I don't have a problem with any of this, except that I didn't just sling 'socialist' as an insult at dimsie. She labeled herself as such, which I don't have a problem with, except for the obvious hypocracy of a socialist endorsing the Mercer Survey. Although you may think my writing style is stand-offish I resent the implication that all I do is name call, which I think an examination of my posts would reveal is untrue."

and

"Hey, I appreciate your and dimsie's interest in my social life. As it is my wife (works for large law firm) got called in for the weekend on some urgent deal, so I was home Sat and Sun night with my daughter. But thanks anyway. No need to worry though, I get out a decent amount. We can exchange notes on places to go if you're ever gonna be in London."

To which you replied...

--"I really, *really*, REALLY resent your lameass faux-polite make nicey-nice jokey bullsh*t here, because you're maintaining an attitude in your most recent post that I find *very* insulting."

Who is having the meltdown? I respond "Uh, ok. If that's the way you want it." At this point the discussion totally breaks down as you and your boy freak when I call you a poser and proceed to abandon all a points of contention and post:

--"Uh, since when did you become P. Diddy? There's nothing lamer than white guys trying to adopt hiphop slang..."

--"LOL What a spaz you are!"

--"...you had this totally embarassing meltdown..."

--"...showing what an assh*le you are, or whatever, but I'm sure you hate yourself as much as most people here do."

--"...maintaining an obsessive on-line therapy session about how we should all feel about your poor, misunderstood country? Fight the good fight and everything, but you seem like you are lonely, or something in London. Are you homesick? Are the horrible Euros gettin' you down? I hope things work out for you and keep up the ebonics lessons and everything, etc. Keep it real, homey..."

Grizzled then very reasonably articulates WHY your position may not be contradictory:

"On socialism. Socialism is one of those words that means many different things to different people. The site that you found is not the site that represents the socialism Dimsie speaks of, (assuming that you are a supporter of the New Zealand Labour Party Dimsie). Search National Socialism and you will come up with something entirely different again. The NZLP and many other Democratic Socialist parties in the west and around the world belong to the Socialist International, (not the International Socialist Organisation). One member of this group is America's best friend in Europe Tony Blair and his governing Labour Party in the UK, hardly an anti-capitalist lot. In fact, most socialists are strongly in favour of capitalism, healthy capitalism, and focus more on ensuring that there is a good social and environmental safety net and framework for capitalism to exist in."

If you can find where you answer my charge of hypocracy in anything close to this manner, I will be happy to apologize for missing it...

Certainly I have also responded in an inflammatory manner, but I do think I have made reasonable analytical arguments to back up my points. And despite your assertion that you are tired of hearing how great the US is and what a dump the rest of the world is, I think a random polling of posts on this board will show an overwhelming number of posts that bag on the US on almost any relevant topic. You are hardly a lone voice tempering pro-US sentiment.

 

*Wow*. You really care about winning this one, HS. Look, I (as a principled person ) obviously stand by my arguments, you stand by yours, such as they are... everyone who actually gives a crap can decide for themselves. (I'm willing to bet that's a very small group!)

BTW, for future reference: it's spelled 'hypocrisy'.

 

Nah, just have a stupid compulsion to get the last word in.

Hey, we agree! I think you are probably absolutely correct.

Doh! What a dumbass. I knew it didn't look write (just kidding, right)!

 

Peace. Europe and the US are both pretty cool. Now if we were talking about ASIA.... (let me instigate another argument ).

 

SJC,

If you <b>reread my last post</b>, I made note that I found more current sources than the earlier ones I had examined that were in the mid to late 90's. I posted a bit of the speech from Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (November 1998), that was a harbinger of the new policy that was enacted in January 2000 which puts German law fairly close in line with current US law in regards to citizenship issues.

Since you like them:



Mango