« DIE WELT Detects Apartheid in the U.S. | Main | What is Germany's Intelligence Service Doing in Iraq? »

Comments

Hmmm I guess it's about time to Leave Germany and return to Denmark where I originally came from ;), then I will avoid the clash walues, and get my pay-as-you-go retirement ;).

I have predicted this for many years. It will be that every working person will have to support a retiree.
Unless changes are made the problems will grow. There are several factors not considered here. Talk about Brain drain? It will accellerate since working people won't have any purchasing power left. They will be forced to look for greener pasturs elsewhere.
Only one thing can save the system. Change to individual accounts (such as our 401K) immediately with a gradual phase-out of the defined benefit scheme.
The Bild report is also somewhat distorted. They talk about what people have paid in vs. what they get out. What ever happened to interest or investment return? It should be included since it is reasonable.

No worries, the state shall provide. Just means the need to take in more immigrants who will provide the tax base needed to continue the superior soical model of democracy. Of course, there will be some cultural adjustments that will have to be met...

There has to be something about the Hijab. Maybe the welfare state could provide eacn german woman one. This surely would increase the birthrate

i agree, germany faces enormous challenges...the US however faces some of the same problems. 2050 the USA will be majority latino. lloking at cities like miami and l.a. that are majority latino already, this isnt something to look forward to. laRaza, no assmiliation, press 1 for spanish, gangbangers, overcrowding...to name just some consuequences. l.a. and miami have ceased to be america. texas, arizona will soon follow and become atztlan. fertility rates for white americans is as low as for germans.

@ Nimrod

As far as I know, American women still get more children than the Germans. But anyway, surely the US is facing serious challenges with the amount of illegal immigration. However, there is one factor that makes the European problems much worse: Islam. I seriously wish for our American friends that the US will be able and foresighted enough to at least keep immigration from these countries at the smallest possible amount (although CAIR etc. are already bad enough).

nimrod,
The spanish in Miami are mostly Cuban, not Mexican.
Another difference is that most Mexican immigrants are roman Catholic rather than Muslims.
A big difference.
The birthrate among white women is officially 2.01. Not as good as one would want but compared to the 1.21 of the ethnic German it is great.

@ Nimrod

"fertility rates for white americans is as low as for germans"

Is this true for sure? It´s difficult to find out I guess since how can you define white americans?
Anyway this would put the american development into a totally different perspective.

Next to religion, there is another difference between "immigration" on our continents: The legal basis.

European countries know how many came / are coming and can enact laws to ensure their assimilation process into our societies. This makes sure they speak our languages and learn our values. The state knows not only their number but also their residences, incomes and so on. So it can redistribute the security infrastructure accordingly to maintain public order.

Illegal immigrants live in the dark corners of a society as they have to hide from the authorities. The government receives no taxes from them, they are hurting the economy and the employment rate of legal citizens. And since they are excluded and have to hide, they enrich organized crime on an international basis (as most have relatives left in the countries they came from).

So Illegals are a bigger danger to a society as a whole than legal immigrants that have a different religion. That´s why we fight Illegals so intensively here.

Don't let yourself fool by this Gunter. Of course no one ensures the assimilation of immigrants into our society or just our values here in Germany. Everyone - again: who doesn't rely on our old media - knows that. For a long time there wasn't even the political will to counter the growing parallel societies ("there are no problems, and everyone who says otherwise is a right-winger and hostile to all foreigners"), that may be slowly changing now. Second: He says government receives no taxes from illegal immigrants. That may be right, but also they don't receive money from the government. Another open secret is that many of our immigrants don't have jobs anyway and therefore indeed do receive money from the state.

@ Mir

The unemployment rate among immigrants is dissatisfying for sure.
At least our government has enacted various changes in our asylum laws. It has become practically impossible to be granted asylum here now, this will save some money.

The political attitude is changing fundamentally right now as more and more 1968ers are retiring from their positions. Face it Mir, your No1 Feindbild is becoming smaller and smaller due to age :)
The younger generation has little motivation to be patient with our muslim minority, or any other one.

Those of my friends that like to think ahead have some rather different ideas. Most assume that especially in Germany the people´s mentality is rarely balanced. In regard to the muslim matter this means: Either we care for our minorities 100% like in the past, or we kick em in their butt.

Even IF we wouldn't get new immigrants (and we do), the demographic reality is undeniable, the predictions are based on the numbers that are already here. But immigrants are of course not the problem, why should they? It's not IF, but WHO.

By the way: Your friends obviously have no idea what and where our problems are. "Kick em in their butt". All minorities? Or only those that are small and / or weak enough not to kick back? Indeed, what a "great" "solution" your friends have.

"The younger generation has little motivation to be patient with our muslim minority, or any other one."

Your "younger generation" is shrinking...theirs is growing. Soon, their "younger generation" will be kicking your "younger generation's" butt. In some European countries, the most popular name for a baby boy is...Mohammed. Wake up.

James W

Why would you want them to wake up?

@ Mir

"Indeed, what a "great" "solution" your friends have"

What? Where have I said it is their solution? My goodness, cut it out..
It is their OBSERVATION and not SOLUTION.
You know, observing and judging does not always include approving this development or presenting a solution, especially when it is a complicated matter.

Obviously, a multi-cultural society can only survive if it based on secularism. Religion creates artificial boundaries within a society that are totally unreasonable and unnecessary.

Fortunately, most Germans are only Christians on paper. They're mostly not interested in religious disputes. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Muslims.

History does repeat. Germans once and it would seem still do have their greatest faith in both man and the state.

@unhinged
Obviously, a multi-cultural society can only survive if it based on secularism. Religion creates artificial boundaries within a society that are totally unreasonable and unnecessary.

What exactly is so obvious?. The U.S. has always been a deeply religious country and it still is. And we're still pretty much a melting pot, about as multi-culti as you can get.

However, perhaps by 'secularism' you mean to point to a separation between church and state?

perhaps by 'secularism' you mean to point to a separation between church and state?

Yes, by "secularism" I mean a state that is neutral on matters of belief and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.

This is one of the cornerstones of the Enlightenment, and it is one of the great cultural achievements of western civilization.

Our modern advanced capitalist society only became possible when we pushed superstitious beliefs, i.e. religion, out of the public sphere. The Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of religion, this is why they made every effort to separate church and state – a very smart decision.

The only reason why Christianity is better than Islam is that the Enlightenment pushed Christianity out of politics, so we don't have religious nuts trying to run our government, like in an Islamic theocracy.

Christianity has always discriminated against women – if you disagree then please consider that there are still no women priests in the catholic church. So Christianity is not a good model for a modern multi-cultural society. Fortunately this is not an issue, because most educated people who call themselves Christians are not really Christians in the medieval sense. They are secularists who haven heard about but never actually read the bible. Which is a good thing.

Oh goody! another target rich environment!

@unhinged
The Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of religion, this is why they made every effort to separate church and state – a very smart decision.

Ya think? Ever read The Declaration of Independence?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their with certain unalienable Rights

No, asswipe, the Founding Fathers were not deeply suspicious of religion - they were deeply suspicious of the state's control of religion.

And having got this most fundamental issue of the U.S. founding so glaringly wrong, I frankly don't think you are worth the ammo wasted on target practice.


oops! That should read:
that they are endowed by their Creatorwith certain unalienable Rights

"So Illegals are a bigger danger to a society as a whole than legal immigrants that have a different religion. That´s why we fight Illegals so intensively here."

see, that's the problem with germany - it's always fighting something. it's bad reputation abroad, the bad weather, foreign looking people,...
if a germany fighting it's fears wouldn't have lead to all that synagogue-burning and paris-invading stuff one could easily laugh about the idiocy of such a mental disorder. however, since we're talking about germany...

if 'illegals' (what a dumbfuck expression) are 'dangerous' why not make them legal. if they (or any other asylum-seeker looking for shelter here) would be able to apply for a job, people wouldn't need to be scared of all those strange looking folks at the metro stations. they are afterall - like anyone else - just trying to make a living.

Posted by: unhinged | January 26, 2007 at 12:17 AM

"Our modern advanced capitalist society only became possible when we pushed superstitious beliefs, i.e. religion, out of the public sphere. The Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of religion, this is why they made every effort to separate church and state – a very smart decision."

Yep, because Euros didn't in turn jump on crazy superstitious secular belief systems (Socialism, Nazism, fascism, et cetera)... Great... A religious person would realize, the problem is with human nature, not religion. Take away religion and you still have fallible humanity with all of its flaws… Same idiots, same zelots, new causes....

Anyway, ditto Pamela. The founders didn't want religion out of public life. They just extended their division of power ideas within government to religion. No state church meant no one single too powerful church... which in turn would also keep government less powerful.

@lars
see, that's the problem with germany - it's always fighting something. it's bad reputation abroad, the bad weather, foreign looking people,...

lars, you fail utterly to understand Gunter's nuanced thinking. When Mir posted that Germany is consider pardoning 2 imprisoned RAF members, Gunter went out of his way to explain how this works.

This concept might seem foreign to non-germans, but a significant part of our society is willing to forgive the most serious crimes when the criminals have acted under the influence of a once dominating political ideology
[]
These people might have commited horrible acts, but they are no criminals in the usual sense. Once the political background for their actions disappears, they usually integrate very well into the society again (unlike ordinary criminals who acted without political background)

He's terribly sophisticated.
As regards those guys that committed crimes in the name of their ideology in the third reich or in the eastern block, they are no criminals in the usual sense because they stick to the system they live in and don´t violate laws. Once the system is gone they are ordinary citizens again while criminals who violate laws and act out of self interest have a high "Rückfallquote".

I don't know what the German word for 'irony' is, but I'm sure it has lots of letters and is very nuanced.


Pamela, :)
The word is Ironie, ironisch, etc. One of the few non convoluted ones.
Why don't we just agree that Germans have just become too lazy too breed and let those few go on their way?
La "dolce vita" in the seventies made people into a "I" culture. With the arrival of the (American caused) Wirtschaftswunder (It would have been great, had it come with instructions) a sense of self importance took over. Values (religious, among others)long ago established were being pushed into the background. Feeling good became it's god. The German Government realized that looming danger and instituted "Kindergeld in order to encourage larger families. It didn't work. Greed was more powerful in this "now generation" and is now leading to demographic suicide.
What is ironic though, Now they instituted "Parent Geld" and it won't work again.

"Ya think? Ever read The Declaration of Independence?"

What was the religion of the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence? In particular, what was his attitude towards Christianity?

@unhinged
in the interest of taking on ALL your arguments:
Christianity has always discriminated against women – if you disagree then please consider that there are still no women priests in the catholic church. So Christianity is not a good model for a modern multi-cultural society. Fortunately this is not an issue, because most educated people who call themselves Christians are not really Christians in the medieval sense. They are secularists who haven heard about but never actually read the bible. Which is a good thing.

It is true that Roman Catholics do not admit women as priests. But Roman Cathlics are not the sum total of Christianity. Epicopalians admit women as priests.

It is also true that some varients of Judaism admit women as rabbis.

If your argument is 'discrimination against women delegitimises religion', I think there is hardly a finer example than Islam. I am unaware of any religous mandate from either Christianity or Judaism that requires the slaughter of a female family member in order to maintain the family 'honor'.

So, while you may understandably question our own cultural heritage in terms of feminist freedom, I do hope you give a backward glance to the Whore who lived like a German

The Bible (Corinthians) instructs that women are to remain silent in church. If they have any questions, they are to ask their husbands after the service. The Episcopalians can say what they like, but that is what the Bible says in clear, simple words. If the Bible is not the inspired word of God, there is no Christian religion. It simply becomes a set of gratifying emotional impulses trimmed to suit the individual. Anyone can make up his own religion based on his own interpretation. The alternative interpretation is that God allowed his people to be bamboozled for centuries by a false book.

Of course, the Bible is full of manifest contradictions, but, hey, I'm not a Christian. I leave it to them to explain how the inspired word of God can contradict itself. As we can see in the case of homosexual Christians, such as Andrew Sullivan, they are certainly capable of all kinds of intellectual contortions. It seems to me that the Bible clearly and simply prohibits homosexual acts. The Christian homosexuals simply rationalize all this away, claiming the Bible didn't mean to say what it clearly says. Again, I don't have to deal with the problem, because I'm not a Christian, but for these, and many other reasons, I consider the religion, along with all the rest, so much childish bunk. Others can believe what they like, but when they somehow conclude that their beliefs make them a little more equal than me, or that they have a right to stuff their beliefs down my throat, I draw the line. Such ideas are not an affirmation of anything American in any sense of the word. They are a betrayal of the principles of the Enlightenment that were the guiding principles of our founding fathers, and a betrayal of America. The Christian zealots of the day had nothing to do with what America stands for. They had a name in those days. The name was "Tory." If the "Christian nation" zealots read the British "Quarterly Review," the best expression of Tory thought in the early 1800's they will recognize their kinship with its writers. They will, that is, if they have any intellectual honesty. Those writers were diametrically opposed to everything America stood for then, and stands for today.

"2050 the USA will be majority latino."

Not according to the census bureau. Their estimates for 2050 are that there will be no majority ethnic or racial group, although whites are expected to be a plurality (from a majority).

"lloking at cities like miami and l.a. that are majority latino already, this isnt something to look forward to. laRaza, no assmiliation, press 1 for spanish, gangbangers, overcrowding...to name just some consuequences."

Yea, that’s right. All Latinos are the same: gangbangers in overcrowded non-assimilated barrios. Keep your bigotry to yourself.

"texas, arizona will soon follow and become atztlan."

B.S. Your knowledge of Aztlan and those two states is even less than your ability to write clearly.

>> if 'illegals' (what a dumbfuck expression) are 'dangerous' why not make them legal.

We've done that with many. But of course a passport doesn't change the attitudes towards our society, the unwillingness to integrate that some of these new Germans (mostly those from certain countries) still hold.

>> if they (or any other asylum-seeker looking for shelter here) would be able to apply for a job...

That may be a solution in the US. However, here in Germany there are already not enough jobs. And unfortunately, many of our immigrants are just not qualified, there are even some who refuse to learn our language.

Joe

Why would you want them to wake up?

Well, I have a 12 year old son who is German/American, and he lives with his mother. He will most likely remain in Germany. So, for his sake, and for the sake of many other friends I have in Germany...

@Don Miguel

"Your knowledge of Aztlan and those two states is even less than your ability to write clearly."

They really let the mask fall when the chips are down, don't they? Suddenly these pure, virtuous progressives, proponents of human equally, reveal that they equate shifts in racial demographics to subversion of a tradition of hard-won human rights by what amounts to an alien ideology. If it's a question of scoring points against the evil United States, they haven't the slightest problem with standing before us in all their racist glory.

Of course, they are all fond of wringing their hands about US "imperialism," and "aggressiveness." In doing so, they once again reveal the blind spots in the "historical" dossiers of American evils that they all learn by heart. Speaking of the lands south of the border, it's interesting to speculate on what might have happened to Mexico, Central and South America if the evil US "imperialists" and their Monroe Doctrine hadn't been around. South America was as rich and easy a field for European, not to mention US, colonialism as Africa.

It happens that Mexico, Central, and South America were not so many European or US colonies in 1910 for historical reasons the European America haters oddly seem to have overlooked. These same America haters have an eagle eye for the slightest incident that could be ripped out of its historical context as an instance of US "evil," or that might reinforce their "Feindbild Amerika." In contrast, they have a strange reluctance to delve into the reasons the map of the Americas looked like it did in the early 1900's. It could, after all, have looked much differently. Many of the countries in the region literally threw themselves at us. They began doing so almost as soon as they gained freedom from Spain, when, for example, Salvador passed a formal decree asking for annexation to the US in order to escape the clutches of the Mexican "emperor" Augustin I, who was trying to extend his control over Central America. As happened in the many subsequent similar incidents, the US turned them down. Augustin I didn't succeed, but the Central American states that formed after the Mexican wave receded were weak and disorganized. In typical fashion, the real colonialists, in this instance the British, pushing out from their "wood cutting station" at Belize, established a puppet regime in the "Mosquito Kingdom" formed of large chunks of Honduras and Nicaragua. Responding to the British pressure, Honduras, Salvador and Nicaragua eventually made overtures for admission to the US. Again, they were turned down. However, in an atmosphere charged with the danger of war between the two countries, the US negotiated the Clayton-Bulwer treaty with England that effectively removed her clutches from the countries in question.

As the years went by, history repeated itself many times. Several Central and South American states, not to mention Cuba and the Dominican Republic, (by a formal vote of its citizens, no less), tried to throw themselves into Uncle Sam's arms, without success. Several Mexican states, such as Yucatan, tried as well, with no better fortune. No doubt Hugo Chavez, the current ruler of Venezuela seldom mentions certain incidents of US involvement in his country, such as the US response to another British land grab at Venezuela's expense, this time from its colony in British Guiana. When the British government refused to arbitrate the question, President Cleveland and Richard Olney, his Secretary of State, made it quite clear that continued stubborness would mean war with the US. Distracted by problems elsewhere, the British backed down.

During the Civil War, the European powers stretched their greedy paws towards Mexico, taking advantage of our Civil War to set up the puppet regime of Maximilian I. In 1866, Secretary Seward demanded point blank that France remove its troops from Mexico, punctuating the urgency of his request by the movement of three corps of battle-hardened Union veterans to the border. The French skedaddled.

In a word, the states of Central and South America could easily have looked like a collage of British India and the French Congo in the early 1900's. The fact that they didn't was no accident. It resulted from the "colonialist" activities of those evil Yankee imperialists.

OK, since someone asked here is exactly what Thomas Jefferson said, "A more beautiful or precious morsel[Kings James Bible] of ethics I have never seen: it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw."

Letter to Charles Thompson, 1816.

@Pat Patterson

“OK, since someone asked here is exactly what Thomas Jefferson said, "A more beautiful or precious morsel[Kings James Bible] of ethics I have never seen…”

Allow me to remind you who that someone was, as it seems to have oddly slipped your mind. It was me. Allow me to also remind you of some of the other things Jefferson said.

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. (letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789. Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”

Thomas Jefferson also said,

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”

Does that sound like a “Christian” doctrine to you? Even his famous quote on the Jefferson memorial was taken from an attack on the Christian clergy of Philadelphia:

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

I can go on with similar quotes ad nauseum. Who are you trying to lie to, me or yourself? If you and all the other “Christian nation” zealots had the intellectual honesty to actually read Jefferson’s works instead of ripping a few quotes out of context, not to mention the intelligence to judge the truth, it would be perfectly obvious to you that he was a Deist. He made no secret of the fact. The religious beliefs of Washington, Madison, Adams, and Franklin, not to mention Thomas Paine, also wouldn’t bear scrutiny when it comes to Christian orthodoxy. They were men of the Enlightenment. They had nothing in common intellectually with today’s “Christian nation” obscurantists, and were, in fact, their exact opposites. Want to find someone who is really ideologically akin to you from that period. Try reading the works of Chateaubriand or de Maistre. You’ll find you’re in the company of kindred spirits.

@ Helian

Your post about european colonial history in south america in the 19th century is quite interesting. But one question remains: Why does it surprise you that european people or their media are very aware ("eagle eye") of american imperialistic moves while not mentioning their own? Isn´t it pretty clear what kind of a behavior this is? It is the behavior of rivals.

You cannot expect balanced opinions from your political rivals.

@Helian
As we can see in the case of homosexual Christians, such as Andrew Sullivan, they are certainly capable of all kinds of intellectual contortions.

I never got Sullivan. Not only does he profess to be a Christian, he professess to be Roman Catholic.

Back in the days I was still reading him, the bottom line seemed to be that the Church had to change to accomodate him. I never understood why he didn't just leave. The Episcopalians would laud him.

Others can believe what they like, but when they somehow conclude that their beliefs make them a little more equal than me, or that they have a right to stuff their beliefs down my throat, I draw the line

Not being a Christian myself, I think the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the evangelical wing have done enormous harm to the -image?- of Christians. I know a few evangelicals and these guys just make them cringe.

And I can't wait for the 'Mormon' discussion if Romney gets some traction. It's going to be much more raucus than that priest who publicly told Kerry he had to stop supporting abortion rights or no communion for him.

Thank G-d we can all have guns.

(For all the Europeans who just went the way of fainting goats, that was a joke, ok?)

@Gunter

This makes sure they speak our languages and learn our values.
Errm, Gunter, what part of Germany are you living in? Care to tell this to the Turkish youth in the Ruhrgebiet? Many of them fail in school because they do not speak German well enough. Many Turkish immigrants and their descendants only speak Turkish at home such that their children will learn that language, defering learing the German language to the Kindergarten, which is way too late (read more). We have looked away for way too long a time and only now start to react to the problem. The WAZ has reports on this on a regular basis.

Some more background reading from the "Zentrum für Türkeistudien", an institute of the University Duisburg-Essen (Sorry, direct linking is impossible): Go to www.zft-online.de, click the German flag, hover the mouse over "Aktuelles" and click on Pressemitteilungen. Look at the right side frame and select "19.10.2006: ZfT-Studie: Integrationsleistungen und gesellschaftliche Chancen klaffen auseinander". The study presented in the article can be found here: PDF

@americanbychoice
Riester-Rente comes to mind and I will only be eligible for pension at an age of 67, not 65. Maybe that age will be pushed even further. I do not expect state pension to be sufficient and will have to take care of myself.

Now, veering wildly off-topic:

  1. The subject of Indians in America came up in comments on this blog some time ago. WDR is going to show a half hour feature Der letzte Ritt des Häuptlings about Lakota Indians commemorating Wounded Knee. One line in the info caught my attention: "Die Bush-Regierung will den Reservats-Zuschnitt verändern, um besser Rohstoffe erschließen zu können." Does anybody know, what this is about?
  2. Today the digital Fotoarchiv Buchenwald has gone online. 500 photographies of KZ Buchenwald, accessible by search terms and thoroughly checked for validity of image description.

@Gunter

"Why does it surprise you that european people or their media are very aware ("eagle eye") of american imperialistic moves while not mentioning their own? Isn´t it pretty clear what kind of a behavior this is? It is the behavior of rivals."

I think it was Lincoln, another one of our Presidents, who observed, we had better hang together or we will all hang separately.

@Pamela

"I never got Sullivan. Not only does he profess to be a Christian, he professess to be Roman Catholic."

I know, I keep reading him occasionally, from force of habit, I guess, and he goes through some pretty weird contortions to keep identifying himself as a RC. As a non-religious person, it leaves me bemused. Just apply Occam's razor. If the Bible clearly states something in three places, it probably actually means what it says. That being the case, I agree with you; instead of trying to redefine the religion so you can fit in, it seems more logical to look for another place to hang your spiritual hat.

OTH, Sullivan isn't the kind of person who thinks that his religion should give him some kind of special political status. In that, I heartily agree with him.


@Blue

"One line in the info caught my attention: "Die Bush-Regierung will den Reservats-Zuschnitt verändern, um besser Rohstoffe erschließen zu können." Does anybody know, what this is about?"

He probably wants to annex another one of their gambling casinos.

@Pamela

No, asswipe, the Founding Fathers were not deeply suspicious of religion - they were deeply suspicious of the state's control of religion.

And having got this most fundamental issue of the U.S. founding so glaringly wrong, I frankly don't think you are worth the ammo wasted on target practice.

Ditto.

Every year world population grows by one Germany.

At the same time the country shrinks by the size of a two-letter-numberplate-town a year.

Average population density in Germany is 70% of that of Japan resp. 700% of that of the U.S. of America.

When the Nazis proclaimed the Volk ohne Raum, the population of what today is Germany was less than the lowest current estimates for 2050 suggest.

As a majority phenomenon, demographic boom does not originate from success but is a result of the lack thereof. The Islamic societies are breeding generation conflict.

What is the population density that should be reached at the same time the reproduction rate hits 2.0?

I think Dennis Prager has a good article about America being intended to be secular/religious:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/01/03/america_founded_to_be_free,_not_secular&Comments=true

I don't understand why Romney's religion should be an issue.
I would vote for someone whose values I share no matter his religion.

A bit off-topic, does anyone know about Tancredo? Is he in?
The other candidates don't quite seem conservative to me (at some point or another)

And beside, when I hear about "comprehensible immigration policy"...
(looks like some term that means "we won't change anything")
Couldn't someone be elected who wouldn't turn North American Countries into United North America!?

Also off-topic, I heard yesterday a podcast of Dennis Prager's.
He was talking about others, about americans travelling abroad and telling everyone who wants to hear this (and there are lots of them) how bad Bush(and even americans) are.
He made the case that there aren't any Germans/Japanese/Chinese just going around the globe telling people how bad ther nations are/were. Isn't that interesting?
I have such a colleague who proudly displays a hate-Bush material, that's why I remembered this.


@WhatDoIKnow:
:) great, m-am prins, "CeStiuIo"
Da, Alexandru Voicu, el intra (scrie) insa mai rar
Mi-ar placea mai schimbam o vorba, scrie-mi pliz un mail scurt la neoconservator@yahoo.com
Alexandru, si tu, pliz ;)

@blue
Does anybody know, what this is about?

Probably this:

The energy bill also has major implications for Native Americans living on reservations. Some Indian leaders have praised the law, which creates an Office of Indian Energy Policy & Programs at the Department of Energy. The office is supposed to increase the supply of electricity to reservation homes and businesses. However, other leaders and activists denounce the law for allowing further exploitation of Native energy resources through provisions for sending nuclear waste to reservations and renewing uranium mining on Indian land. The Indigenous Environmental Network, a Native grassroots organization, said the energy bill "poses threats to our lands, people and culture." And on this 60th anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Nagasaki, the first new nuclear power plants to be built in 30 years will likely be sited on reservations as well.

Many grains of salt are advised. No nuclear plant can get enough insurance to be built.

In fact, the legislation grew out of a task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the former C.E.O. of Halliburton

It's the usual BushChimpyMcHitler stuff.


Have you seen Gunter salivating regarding nimrods response?
I am sure Gunter will use this as irrefutatable evidence that the reproduction rate of Americans is in the crapper just like Germany's. LOL

@Helian
If you and all the other “Christian nation” zealots had the intellectual honesty to actually read Jefferson’s works instead of ripping a few quotes out of context, not to mention the intelligence to judge the truth, it would be perfectly obvious to you that he was a Deist.

He was? I thought he called himself a 'Materialist'. Or is that, given the terminology of his day, pretty much the same thing? It's been years since I did the 'history of religions' bit, but if memory serves, Jefferson considered Jesus to be primarily a reformer of the Jewish people.

americanbychoice, Gunter doesn't salivate. Those of us with opposable thumbs salivate. Gunter drools.

neocon:
Tancredo might run. he has formed an exploratory committee. this guy seems to be the only candidate that doesnt want the US to become fully mexicanized. i apologize if my previous post wasnt clear enough. i wrote it in a hurry. so again: the US faces similar challenges as germany. the melting pot doesnt work as well as it used to..it is simply overwhelmed with so many immigrants, illegal and legal. balkanization is the consequence. another thing: there may be fewer muslims in the US than in germany, percentage-wise at least, but Dhimmitude is not solely an european phenomenon. in minneapolis muslim cab drivers can refuse to pick up blind people traveling with their dog, since dogs are considered un-clean by muslims. thats just one example...travel to northern new jersey or michigan if you want to see islam spreading in northern america.

Actually I don't really care what that old faker and bad architect believed when it came to religion, except to say he was wildly inconsistent yet part and parcel of religion in the New World. If he claims himself to be a Christian but not a follower of the churches of Christianity then I wonder just what exercises the minds of non-believers to accuse anybody that disagrees with them of being Bible-thumping hillbillies.

It is simply wrong to assume that if one one makes statments concerning the practice of religion that makes one automatically a Deist, an aetheist or agnostic. Madison, Jefferson and Washington to name a few always identified themselves as Christian but also firmly believed that the State and the Church would be better off if apart. Of the group mentioned only Paine identified himself as an aetheist and if we had followed his example and had a French-style revolution in the US then in the springtime we could show our children where the tumbrels had been instead of where the cherry blossoms are now.

@helian, Pamela:
Thanks for the input. I'll have a look at the feature and keep you posted on this thread (and point to it from elsewhere, if this thread is dead by then).

@Nimrod
Data points about Muslim population
Germany (from http://www.zeit.de/2006/19/Fragen_leben , includes links to more data)
143 mosques (minaret and all)
2660 prayer and convention rooms
3 million muslims approx.

USA (from http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/demograp.htm )
1209 Mosques in the United States
2 million American Muslims associated with a mosque

The US figure seems to vary a lot depending on who you ask and they don't tell, what they consider to be a mosque (full fledged /prayer room).

About the Minneapolis example: I have heard reports from several Western countries, the drivers are violating regulations in doing so AFAIK. You on the other hand imply that taxi drivers in Minneapolis are legally entitled to refuse the transportation of seeing-eye dogs. Would you please elaborate on that?

blue, re: Muslims in the U.S. The Council for American/Islamic Relations puts the number at 8 million. Most people think that's high - more like 4 million. Also, please note that I'm talking about Muslims in America, not American Muslims. And when one does talk about American Muslims, it's a good idea to distinguish between the Malcolm X/Louis Farrakhan Muslims vs. other American Muslims.

Re: Minneapolis - you are correct. The drivers don't have a legal leg to stand on and the airport authority (where this all started) is threatening to pull their licenses. And it's not just people with dogs - they're also refusing to transport people carrying alcoholic beverages.

If you think, "Gee, how odd, where did this come from?" you would be thinking along reasonable lines. Some people are beginning to find evidence of coordination, primarily from the Muslim Brotherhood, IIRC, which is out of Egypt.

There are quite of few pockets in the U.S. that have been thoroughly infiltrated. I live in one, northern Virginia. Dearborn is another and from what I'm seeing, we will shortly find out Phoenix is another.

I look forward to your report on that television 'documentary'. Let me know if it compares reservations to internment camps a la Gitmo.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30