Arizona Iced Tea, "The drink of fascists" is being boycotted by some fringe anti-Arizona (State) folks as a symbolic gesture. Problem is, Arizona Iced Tea comes from NY.

Wizlah wrote:Thank $#@!.

I'm baffled. I have no idea what word you could use here that would be censored.

One of my absolute favorite things about... what to call them... Britons? UK types? Is their amazing way of delivering profanities in new and unthinkable ways I could never imagine. Seriously, it's like poetry to me - smashing to words together (sometimes both profane) with such a loud, vibrating, echoing clank is so stark and entertaining.

Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The lady obviously didn't graduate from Oxford, so maybe she didn't articulate her concerns about immigration among the other issues she was worried about in the most artful way, but she didn't say anything hateful. Are we to the point where you're not allowed to voice concern that too many immigrants might be coming into the country without being called bigoted/racist/prejudiced?

England is the size of North Carolina and has 50% more people in it than $#@! California. I'm not sure how many extra folks I'd be wanting to squeeze onto the island myself if I lived there. It's certainly something you should be able to raise as an issue without being slandered.

I think you could more accurately call it an ignorant comment (the reference to "All these eastern European what are coming in, where are they flocking from?").

As for the impact on immigration as a whole, and the UKs resources in terms of population density, I think your argument might sound a deal more authoritative if couched in a wider context than North Carolina. Including countries with extremely high population density might be a start. India comes to mind, as well as germany which is not far behind the UK in density. Then asking about wealth per capita, stuff like that. Then checking, maybe, figures like the impact on public services and housing through immigration in the UK and other countries, and proportionate spend by those countries governments.

Sorry to sound snotty, but it's a lazy response of the type that the British National Party (BNP) and most of the major political parties trot out over here, albeit on a sliding scale (from stop all immigrants to maybe we should just have a points system for immigration, but keep a careful eye on all those shifty bastards that come into the country). The line is somehow that in geographic terms alone, we must be $#@!. instead of asking how many other people are in the same situation as ourselves, and how they cope comparitively, and indeed, what are the best measurements of how we're coping.

I apologise for the grumpiness. You probably just wanted to get back at Pacino. As you can tell, I've more than had it up to here with cheap one-liner arguments of late. Just one week to go.

Thank $#@!.

On the population density front, the UK is at 255 people per square mile compared to 230 for Germany and 369 for India per your link. But England has 51,000,000 people in 50k square miles, so its population density is over 1,000 people per square mile. I don't know where the majority of the immigrants gravitate toward, but I'd guess many of them end up in and around the big cities, where most of the other people are. Scotland being 60% of the size of England, but only having 1/10th England's population skews the population density figures. This woman living in Greater Manchester lives in a pretty damn densely populated place.

Not to say she isn't a bigot. She could well be. But asking one inartful question among many during a chance run in with your country's prime minister doesn't make her a BNP voter.

VoxOrion wrote:One of my absolute favorite things about... what to call them... Britons? UK types? Is their amazing way of delivering profanities in new and unthinkable ways I could never imagine. Seriously, it's like poetry to me - smashing to words together (sometimes both profane) with such a loud, vibrating, echoing clank is so stark and entertaining.

"In the Loop" was masterful at this. I presume you've seen it, but if you haven't, do so ASAP.

jerseyhoya wrote:Also Crist will announce he's going through with the indy bid tomorrow.

How he handles the roll out is going to be huge. National Dems think Meek can win, and I agree with them. Rubio's a slight favorite still maybe, but I think Meek has a real chance. I don't know what Crist's path to victory is. But whether he says he'll caucus with the Dems or Republicans or ignores that question will have a big bearing on the race as a whole. And what issues he chooses to emphasize to differentiate himself too.

My understanding is that he's going to run a "fuck all y'all" campaign--blasting federal health care reform and the education bill he just vetoed as parallel instances of government overreach.

What I think will be fascinating is whether Crist--an incumbent and by all accounts a particularly heinous careerist--can nonetheless ride the wave of discontent with politics as usual by running outside the two-party system. It wouldn't shock me, especially in a weird-ass state like Florida.

The caucus question is a big one. I'm not sure why he would give that away ahead of time, though; wouldn't the politically advantageous thing be to keep his powder dry and say "I'll caucus with whatever party I believe will be best for the great state of Florida"?

Chads will hang.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The lady obviously didn't graduate from Oxford, so maybe she didn't articulate her concerns about immigration among the other issues she was worried about in the most artful way, but she didn't say anything hateful. Are we to the point where you're not allowed to voice concern that too many immigrants might be coming into the country without being called bigoted/racist/prejudiced?

England is the size of North Carolina and has 50% more people in it than $#@! California. I'm not sure how many extra folks I'd be wanting to squeeze onto the island myself if I lived there. It's certainly something you should be able to raise as an issue without being slandered.

I think you could more accurately call it an ignorant comment (the reference to "All these eastern European what are coming in, where are they flocking from?").

As for the impact on immigration as a whole, and the UKs resources in terms of population density, I think your argument might sound a deal more authoritative if couched in a wider context than North Carolina. Including countries with extremely high population density might be a start. India comes to mind, as well as germany which is not far behind the UK in density. Then asking about wealth per capita, stuff like that. Then checking, maybe, figures like the impact on public services and housing through immigration in the UK and other countries, and proportionate spend by those countries governments.

Sorry to sound snotty, but it's a lazy response of the type that the British National Party (BNP) and most of the major political parties trot out over here, albeit on a sliding scale (from stop all immigrants to maybe we should just have a points system for immigration, but keep a careful eye on all those shifty bastards that come into the country). The line is somehow that in geographic terms alone, we must be $#@!. instead of asking how many other people are in the same situation as ourselves, and how they cope comparitively, and indeed, what are the best measurements of how we're coping.

I apologise for the grumpiness. You probably just wanted to get back at Pacino. As you can tell, I've more than had it up to here with cheap one-liner arguments of late. Just one week to go.

Thank $#@!.

On the population density front, the UK is at 255 people per square mile compared to 230 for Germany and 369 for India per your link. But England has 51,000,000 people in 50k square miles, so its population density is over 1,000 people per square mile. I don't know where the majority of the immigrants gravitate toward, but I'd guess many of them end up in and around the big cities, where most of the other people are. Scotland being 60% of the size of England, but only having 1/10th England's population skews the population density figures. This woman living in Greater Manchester lives in a pretty damn densely populated place.

Not to say she isn't a bigot. She could well be. But asking one inartful question among many during a chance run in with your country's prime minister doesn't make her a BNP voter.

And population density in parts of India is well over 1000 people per square mile...I'm sure the same is true for Germany.

According to Wikipedia, the Shetland Islands have a population density of 39 people per sq. mi. I'd say they could handle a couple of immigrants up there.

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The lady obviously didn't graduate from Oxford, so maybe she didn't articulate her concerns about immigration among the other issues she was worried about in the most artful way, but she didn't say anything hateful. Are we to the point where you're not allowed to voice concern that too many immigrants might be coming into the country without being called bigoted/racist/prejudiced?

England is the size of North Carolina and has 50% more people in it than $#@! California. I'm not sure how many extra folks I'd be wanting to squeeze onto the island myself if I lived there. It's certainly something you should be able to raise as an issue without being slandered.

I think you could more accurately call it an ignorant comment (the reference to "All these eastern European what are coming in, where are they flocking from?").

As for the impact on immigration as a whole, and the UKs resources in terms of population density, I think your argument might sound a deal more authoritative if couched in a wider context than North Carolina. Including countries with extremely high population density might be a start. India comes to mind, as well as germany which is not far behind the UK in density. Then asking about wealth per capita, stuff like that. Then checking, maybe, figures like the impact on public services and housing through immigration in the UK and other countries, and proportionate spend by those countries governments.

Sorry to sound snotty, but it's a lazy response of the type that the British National Party (BNP) and most of the major political parties trot out over here, albeit on a sliding scale (from stop all immigrants to maybe we should just have a points system for immigration, but keep a careful eye on all those shifty bastards that come into the country). The line is somehow that in geographic terms alone, we must be $#@!. instead of asking how many other people are in the same situation as ourselves, and how they cope comparitively, and indeed, what are the best measurements of how we're coping.

I apologise for the grumpiness. You probably just wanted to get back at Pacino. As you can tell, I've more than had it up to here with cheap one-liner arguments of late. Just one week to go.

Thank $#@!.

On the population density front, the UK is at 255 people per square mile compared to 230 for Germany and 369 for India per your link. But England has 51,000,000 people in 50k square miles, so its population density is over 1,000 people per square mile. I don't know where the majority of the immigrants gravitate toward, but I'd guess many of them end up in and around the big cities, where most of the other people are. Scotland being 60% of the size of England, but only having 1/10th England's population skews the population density figures. This woman living in Greater Manchester lives in a pretty damn densely populated place.

Not to say she isn't a bigot. She could well be. But asking one inartful question among many during a chance run in with your country's prime minister doesn't make her a BNP voter.

And population density in parts of India is well over 1000 people per square mile...I'm sure the same is true for Germany.

So fucking what? I mean really.

New Jersey is the only state in the country that has a higher population density than all of England. It works fine and there is room for more people here in some places, and in other parts of the state it's pretty damn crowded to the point where the roads are overburdened.

I don't really give a crap about immigration in the UK, and I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but there are plenty of people across the political spectrum who oppose mass immigration. I hate when the PC brigade shouts bigot or racism anytime something slightly controversial is brought up. If there's a large influx of low skilled labor, that can push down the wages earned by the working class. Many union Dems in America are opposed to the guest worker provisions in the various immigration reforms that've been proposed over the last decade for that reason. Going out on a limb, I imagine there's a huge segment of Labour voters who have the same concerns. People aren't keen on folks from other countries coming in and increasing the worker pool at the low end of the spectrum, and I don't think it's hard to see why. Obviously immigrants bring a multitude of benefits as well, and it's a debate worth having over what the proper levels of immigration should be to maximize the benefits to the country on the whole and minimize the costs they impose on the state and disrupted workers. The BNP and their British Jobs for British people and banging on about how Muslims are evil is one thing, but a grandmother worrying about whether there will be good jobs around for her kids and grandkids isn't necessarily bigoted, and it's not helpful that the left is always so keen to assume that anyone that disagrees with them is racist/bigoted/xenophobic/etc.

TenuredVulture wrote:According to Wikipedia, the Shetland Islands have a population density of 39 people per sq. mi. I'd say they could handle a couple of immigrants up there.

It's even more uncrowded than that, isn't it? They have to be built small to ride them little horses.

Wizlah wrote:Sorry to sound snotty, but it's a lazy response of the type that the British National Party (BNP) and most of the major political parties trot out over here, albeit on a sliding scale (from stop all immigrants to maybe we should just have a points system for immigration, but keep a careful eye on all those shifty bastards that come into the country).

Wiz, you make snotty look good.

Us merkins don't know from population density. And the less dense (pick a booger from the American west) the place, the MORE dense about the subject, if you catch my drift; see, in small part (because the documentation edict is more about that they're brown), Arizona.

VoxOrion wrote:Arizona Iced Tea, "The drink of fascists" is being boycotted by some fringe anti-Arizona (State) folks as a symbolic gesture. Problem is, Arizona Iced Tea comes from NY.

Dude, they got you.

Fuhgeddabout provenance, that's for limp-wristed wine sippers: it's got "Arizona" and "Tea" all in the same title.

and you're talkin' it up - lookatcha!

and you are so right about brit profanity - but they did have shakespeare, & shit

I may be captain obvious here, but the I'm pretty sure the immigration issue has nothing to do with population density.

It might have something to do with romantic notions of national identity and chauvinism, it might have something to do with xenophobia, and it might have something to with racism and ethnocentrism.

I do think regardless of what may be some ugly excesses in response to what is in fact a real problem in parts of the US the US approach to immigration has largely been successful, especially compared to much of continental Europe. (And forget about Japan.)

Now, I really don't think immigration today is a bigger challenge than immigration in the 1890s. And I don't think the xenophobia is really that much uglier, but I wasn't around back then so I don't really know.

There are practical issues here that get little attention. Deportation is not going to happen. You can't totally secure the border using the military. Requiring employers to go through verification with either be very costly to small businesses, or it will be ineffective. We are hurting ourselves economically offering far too few H1B visas.

On the other hand, amnesty is unfair to those trying to enter the county legally. A guest worker program seems like a recipe for exploitation. However, a limited amnesty program (something along the lines of we will give you amnesty, but you must pay a fine, and you can never apply for citizenship) might work.

You give lots of reasons why people oppose immigration, but leave out economic ones. Basically you suggest people could be racist, racist or racist as their reasons for opposing immigration. I'm all on board with the Chamber of Commerce, bring me lots of Mexicans line on immigration, but expanding the pool of unskilled workers has to depress wages. I have my degree so I don't landscape or build houses for a living, but if I did, I imagine I'd prefer not having to bid against immigrants for jobs. I wouldn't give a shit what color they were or what language they spoke.

jerseyhoya wrote: expanding the pool of unskilled workers has to depress wages. I have my degree so I don't landscape or build houses for a living, but if I did, I imagine I'd prefer not having to bid against immigrants for jobs. I wouldn't give a $#@! what color they were or what language they spoke.

I'm hoping dajafi weighs in here, but my sense is the effect you imagine is not what actually goes on, particularly with respect to a) landscaping and b) house-building. Both, above the most rudimentary projects, require chops. The competition is not amongst people who have no skills, but among people who have transportable skills, and one that favors those who transport them from one (lower-paying) place to another (higher-paying) place.

Ask radiologists how they like competing with Bangalore-based professional colleagues, who transport their skills along a phone line rather than the shores of the Rio Grande. Or, more & more, people with law degrees, or design skills, etc. Who knows, maybe even grad-level political wonks (dude, if you can't code php, how you going to process all that cool 538-y elections data)?

Well-meaning moderates like David Brooks would tell you that you should have your kids work on their "emotional intelligence skills" because that's where the sustainable out is, where the economy MUST go if there's to continue to be something identifiable as a middle class.

Bull s h i t.

The only "skilled" individuals that benefit from that blarney are the lloyd blankfeins, the angela bralys, the "emotionally intelligent" gangsters who skillfully fuck you up with a smile, a powerpoint, and a contract and leave you thinking "gee, what a nice sort of person."

Who do you think is cheering on the kind of crap that's going on in arizona, in the UK, & plenty of other places? Your (not you, but you know what I mean) readiness to take a brick upside that ecuadorian landscaper's head gives them another day free of worry you might chuck it through the windshield of their lexus.

I understand you're trying to clarify why people would be upset, rather than support their rationales. It's just that it's a pivotal matter that lots of people, in lots of lands, have to get their minds wrapped around, before they go wrapping their hands round the butts of firearms. It ain't the guy walking down your street you have to worry about. It's the guy who owns your street - & who doesn't much want you to.

That's not to promote an anarchist utopia - that's merely to suggest that even "reasonable" concerns about "others" crowding into your grounds are, in the main, misplaced - not ranked well. You looking for the source of your worries, lady? Look up - up higher.

VoxOrion wrote:One of my absolute favorite things about... what to call them... Britons? UK types? Is their amazing way of delivering profanities in new and unthinkable ways I could never imagine. Seriously, it's like poetry to me - smashing to words together (sometimes both profane) with such a loud, vibrating, echoing clank is so stark and entertaining.

are you saying you read my posts without the swear filter on?

Swiggers wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:One of my absolute favorite things about... what to call them... Britons? UK types? Is their amazing way of delivering profanities in new and unthinkable ways I could never imagine. Seriously, it's like poetry to me - smashing to words together (sometimes both profane) with such a loud, vibrating, echoing clank is so stark and entertaining.

"In the Loop" was masterful at this. I presume you've seen it, but if you haven't, do so ASAP.

Not seen it yet. bad. so bad. Malcolm would not approve.

Jerz, the source of my grumpiness was someone saying that the UK seemed pretty overcrowded to the point of filling up. Shit, Cameron just busted out that the LibDems are threatening to LET 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE INTO THE COUNTRY. 1.2 MILLION!!!

What the fuck does that figure even mean? are we letting them into the scottish highlands, so we can farm them like sheep in some sick reversal of scottish history? are loads going to trot off to cities? lets just all dump them in the gorbals in glasgow and see how they get on at chibbing with the locals?

You're right. The standard response in the UK to someone saying 'I'm worried about immigration' is often 'shut up and go listen to some more skrewdriver, but don't stab me'. And that's been commented on at length in the meeja over the course of the last 24 hours.

But shouting out that extra people somehow won't fit without providing any context to the figures, without comparing them to other countries and seeing how they cope (or don't - check out mumbai's population density. MAXIMUM CITY, BABY) (Lagos is another one, I think), without analysing what the immigrants do when they come to this country (the UK picks up an awful lot of doctors and nurses due to the NHS, for example) ... that's not an argument.

Didn't stop the leader of the opposition party throwing it out as a veiled threat this evening. Or the immigration minister saying down in Dagenham (where the BNP are putting up a candidate) that they deport someone EVERY 8 MINUTES. (8. COUNT 'EM. HOW MANY IS THAT IN A YEAR? YEAH, BABY!) Hasn't stopped any political leader in the UK since the arrival of the Windrush from trotting it out as a line. And because we see fuck all else by way of actual statistical analysis in the meeja about it, I don't think the average person ever bothers to think properly about it.

So, to summarise, they could be living cheek by peroxided fanny in manchester in 10 years time, and it still wouldn't be a legitimate line of argument if they all had jobs to go to and houses to come home to. Shit, some of them might even like that. The cheek to fanny bit, that is.

By the by, a recent report suggested that in the UK, areas with high levels of immigration are not more likely to vote BNP. Taking a vote for the BNP to be a measure of whether people are concerned about immigration, that makes for a pretty interesting finding.

TenuredVulture wrote:Now, I really don't think immigration today is a bigger challenge than immigration in the 1890s. And I don't think the xenophobia is really that much uglier, but I wasn't around back then so I don't really know.

Ah, the days of Hibernophobia!