Michael of the blog Christian Conservative has recently published an interview with me, the first in a projected series of interviews with lefties: Part 1 and Part 2. Michael’s idea, I think, is to give his mostly right-wing readers a sense of what sort of world leftists hope for.
It’s odd but fun (in an egotistical sort of way) to be interviewed. Of course, I doubt any of my opinions will be news to “Alas” readers (and I state them more carefully and accurately on “Alas” than I was capable of doing in a real-time interview format), but it’s enjoyable to read Michael’s readers reactions to me. Some of the reactions are pretty friendly, and some are not – like this fellow:
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 53:1)
This man is a fool, and his views are foolish and evil. I appreciate your exposition Michael as an educational tool, but seriously, what a wicked wretch.
That was the most extreme comment (and hence the funniest), but there were other, more open-minded comments, too. And Michael, whose views I do not agree with (to put it mildly), was very nice to me.
I especially like the “… but seriously” part. As if using words like wretch, foolish and evil didn’t imply the writer’s seriousness, so s/he needed to make sure Michael got it.
Amp is evil. Evil! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!
Am I the only one having problems with the link?
Nevermind
cc: … As a general statement would you support torture against detainees during interrogation if the information could save American lives?
a: Yes, I would. However, I’d also point out that the question assumes things that could never actually be known in real life, so it’s not a useful question to ask, from my perspective.
it’s nice that you point out the hollowness of the original question, but it is dismaying to see even a modicum of ground given to any justification or rationalization of torture…
oops… dammit
the second part of that post beginning “a: Yes, I would…” should have also been in quotes as it is Mr. Ampersand answering a question in the interview. last despairing bit is by me…
Hey, Jam.
That’s one of the two or three answers in the interview I wish I could change.
My point is, in some fiction scenario where I know for a fact that I’d save millions of lives (American or otherwise) by ordering one person tortured, I’d give the order. I’m not so anti-torture that I’d say that better a million die than one man suffer.
But in real life, that situation never happens, and logically cannot happen. So to use that scenario, or one like it, as the justification for torture is to decieve ourselves. In real life, I’d never approve of torture.
Wow, it took about three hours for someone to go “abortion is murder and cannot be compromised”
LOL! Leave it to me to leave a comment that strikes home!
Seriously though (yep, I used “seriously” again), my comment wasn’t meant as an insult, despite what you may think. My comment was actually an echo of Psalm 53:1.
You see, I spent a good 20-30 minutes dissecting your views on the various subjects Michael asked you and I really didn’t know how someone could be so wrong about so many things (again, this is totally my opinion, you may think I’m totally nuts, that would be your opinion). And then it hit me… this man said and continues to say: “No!” to God.
The Bible says that those who say “no!” to God are fools. Therefore, as my faith is in the God of the Bible, my conclusion was to call you what my God calls you: a fool.
Take it or leave my friend, in the end, we both enjoy life in the free world. You have the right to say “no!”, just as I have the right to say “yes!”, and I’m totally cool with that. But if my faith is correct, my poor friend, when you breathe your last, are you EVER in a nasty position.
Take care, hope you come around some day (try not to thrash me to bad…LOL),
Rand
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” (Proverbs 9:10)
Amp,
Interesting exercise. I do have one question: why do you call a fetus a “preborn”?
Wow, I dunno if I personally could take part in that debate, especially considering it’s on the turf of the opposition. That person ‘Le’ who is pretty much disregarding the etiquette that seemed to be the goal of the discussion managed to make me gnash my teeth repeatedly. Women just need to be educated to the truth about abortion, Le says.
I did, however, really enjoy Seattle Slough’s commentary. All in all, it’s a good read.
You know Rand, if we’re all fools, we’re in good company. I for one am content to snuggle the warm sentiments of ‘foolishness’ espoused by the ‘fellowship’ of progressives.
Rand,
and I don’t mean this as an insult, but doesn’t the same reading of the bible make you a fool?
Have you been refraining from stoning any adulterers lately (or not supporting legislation to instituted such stoning)? eaten seafood? Wore clothing made of cotton and wool blends? gotten divorced? etc, etc, etc…
if so, you are saying NO! to God… a fool.
If we are us thus fools, I guess the word loses its sting.
“All Bibles are man-made.”
Thomas Edison
Actually Rand is exactly right. I overheard this the other day:
God: Hey Ampersand, would you like a chicken wing?
Amp: No, no I wouldn’t.
God: You sure, it’s a pretty tasty wing.
Amp: Yeesh, God, how many times do I have to say no to you?
God: Okay, but you’re a fool for passing this up.
You’re so full of shit, Raznor; Amp would never pass up a chicken wing!
Now if you had said it was a berry pie, then maybe I’d have believed you.
Kim, you heretic, obviously it was spicy chicken wings!
Now I have the remix of What would Brian Boytano Do? running through my head:
Anyway really nice interview on both sides.
Wicked wretch.
Holy Merchant-Ivory film marathon, Batman!
I started to read it and I’ll finish it later, but I thought that you did a nice job based on what I’ve read so far. I didn’t read the comments.
Hey Rand (if this wasn’t a drive by posting, and you’ve actualy got the courage to stand ehre and take what you dish out), you also called him wicked, evil, and a wretch.
As far as I’m concened, that indicates contempt, not just for him refusing to think there’s a god. But even on the athiest front, calling people names who dont agree with you on the existence of God isn’t winning you any points.
And then there are the threats
What is this? A mafia shakedown? First you insult Amp, and then you threaten him. I think you’ve got a serious problem with your contempt for people who don’t follow your religion, and I’m including a lot of Christians in that group. Seriously. It’s like you’re flaunting your self proclaimed salvation as if it were some sort of lolly pop that you get and the other kids don’t. “I get to go to Heeeaaven, and yooooou dooooon’t! Nay nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!”
That’s certainly an interesting religion you’ve got there. It’s funny how God’s plan makes it exactly possible for you to feel like some smug winner, and sneer at all the loosers. And here I thought Christ taught humility. Silly me. What he realy meant was to act like an arrogant know it all bully, and threaten people who don’t accept him.
I’m glad we’re clear on that.
Amp would pass up a berry pie? Now *my* God is being blasphemed!
I’m actually a bit surprised at how much of Amp’s interview I agreed with, given that the blogroll classifies me as being to his right. I’ve only got a few nitpicks (e.g. I take a slightly harder line on the right to free speech), plus the fact that I refuse to hold a position on abortion or Terri Schiavo.
Mr. Ampersand writes: My point is, in some fiction scenario where I know for a fact that I’d save millions of lives (American or otherwise) by ordering one person tortured, I’d give the order. I’m not so anti-torture that I’d say that better a million die than one man suffer. But in real life, that situation never happens, and logically cannot happen. So to use that scenario, or one like it, as the justification for torture is to decieve ourselves. In real life, I’d never approve of torture.
yah, i gets you. i confess that while watching the X Files i was a regular advocate of Mulder &/or Scully torturing Cancer Man to get “the truth” … tho’ i guess then the series would have ended sorta earlier… which actually would’ve been a good thing! huh… i guess torture can be a good.
but in real life torture is just one of those things i can’t even feign being “reasonable” about, y’know?
and speaking of being reasonable: Rand, buddy… can i have your car when the Rapture comes?
I now have this image of Eric Cartman dancing around.
You might want to check with the site — I think that a chunk of the interview got cut by accident: see this paragraph
[Just now] we discussed abortion in the fairly standard way – how do we define when life starts, etc? But I actually like to try and talk about this in a different way, which is: What is the best-proven method of reducing abortion?
Its Ampersand: Even if we accept the pro-life premise that there is no means of making a moral distinction between a ten-day-old embryo and a 18-month infant, that doesn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to ban abortion.
I think that something was supposed to come after “Its,” and that a question was supposed to precede the next “Ampersand” . . .
was also quite surprised to see you use the strange term “preborn.” were you trying to be neutral in some degree?
Hey Amp,
Hon, kudos on having the guts to do that. And honestly, I gotta give props to the respect with which the interviewer treated the whole endeavour, and I think in the majority of comments, with some fundy freak exceptions of course, reflected that respect. And, of course, I couldn’t help but smile with how much of what you said I agreed with *smile*
Now, then, the obvious question to me, would be, does it behove us to do the same? We pride ourselves on being the ‘reality-based’ community, and lots of us here have talked repeatedly about possible compromise initiatives (like the one on abortion and birth control you mentioned during the interview), so is that so much hot air? Should we perhaps interview some conservatives (religous or otherwise) so that we can listen to what they have to say. At least we won’t get random posts like the patronising and demeaning comment from Mr Rand as being represntative of the ‘other side’ (oh crap, I really hope that isn’t).
Just a thought anyway.
Rand is a blasphemer for presuming to speak for God. Basing it on that anthology of mixed reviews known as the Bible doesn’t make it any less so. The information is unavailable to the mortal man, Rand.
Now, as to Mr Rand’s comment above.
As a pro-choice, pluralistic, liberal, atheistic, academic, feminist, social-democratic, lesbian-femme I’ve been told repeatedly that I’m going to hell (oh yeah, hit all the major road-bumps). In fact, even by those Christians that accept all of the above, I have been told that it’s sad that I am going to hell since I won’t accept Jesus as my saviour.
So, I did some thinking on the matter. I looked at all the people Christians were saying were going to hell, and those that they said would be going to heaven. And damn if the more fun and interesting (including my entire dating pool) people were ending up in hell.
So, I got ahead of the rush, and have put a nice downpayment on a condo in the underworld. It’s on a great hill overlooking the lake of fire and molten rock. The way I look at it there is apparently going to be a huge rush on real estate there soon, and well, Lucifer’s kingdom’s land prices are already *ahem* hell. So why not get in beforehand? Apparently I’m going there anyway, so it just makes good business sense if nothing else.
Plus, I figure it’s a bit like the republicans talking about democratic political initiatives; of COURSE they aren’t going to paint them in a good light. One certainly couldn’t expect a fundamentalist evangelical to speak good of the opposition, so I figure Tartarus has gotten a bit of a bum rap. I mean, hell, it’s gotta be warm at least, and I figure there isn’t much of an energy crisis.
Sure, I will miss nice ski runs down fresh fallen powder, and I expect hot espresso becomes not so much of a luxury. But, most of the bands and singers that I admire are apparently there, or on their way, so at least the soundtrack has to be better. If anything, of course, at a minimum it’s gotta be good not to be in the same plane of existence as George W. Bush and Tom Delay.
So, I’m thinking, when the fundamentalists tell me I’m going to hell, well, instead of yelling at them and telling them not to push their beliefs on me, I just gotta say “Thanks, I know” and smile and wish them a good day :)
Rand, all you Christians,
I’m a very serious (one hesitates to praise oneself by saying “devout”) Roman Catholic. I read Amp’s interview carefully, in full, and I am quite unable to locate any place at all where Amp “says no to God” or anything of the sort. Can you be more specific?? I can’t figure out what you’re talking about.
Now, Ampersand is a self-described atheist. Without questioning his own identification of himself (always a no-no) I’d like to talk about this word “atheist” for a moment. It means literally, of course, one who does not believe in God.
That moves us right along to the question, “what do we mean by ‘God’? which God? What does that concept mean? What is it exactly that Ampersand does not believe in?”
Now this is for Ampersand to answer, obviously, not I. (Just as when I say that I believe in God, the most legitimate next question is, “which one?” a question which only I can answer.) If I were in an extremely right-wing Islamist regime, from their perspective I would be an “atheist” because I don’t believe in the right God. Many people in this country call themselves atheists because they do not believe in a Man in the Sky who runs things. By this definition, too, I am an atheist.
I would say, and this kind of thing is always inadequate, that by “God” I mean the organizing principle of the universe, that which is expressed in a rose bud, a hummingbird, a galaxy, and yes, in death and decay too. I believe, as does science, that all this makes some kind of sense, that it is governed by one set of “laws,” though the whole of the thing is probably much too big for our limited understanding. (As a Christian I hold further beliefs about the nature of this unity, but that’s being a Christian, not a theist.)
Taking the definition in this way, for myself I doubt that there are any real atheists outside of mental asylums. Someone who is an “atheist” because he or she does not subscribe to the description in the immediately preceding paragraph is someone who has no values at all, who believes that there are no values, that the universe and human society are at bottom senseless. Such a person could not be a scientist (for science is founded on the opposite presumption) and we could not live with him or her in safety, for he or she would acknowledge no rights in anyone else.
Ampersand clearly does not fall into this category. He believes that human beings are fundamentally good, and he has a clear idea of what “good” is. He further believes that we have an obligation to take care of each other, not only to be “fair” (though he does believe that) but that we should also, as he said, “establish a floor under people, a degree of poverty below which no one will be allowed to fall.” He believes that children should be protected. He believes that we should treat one another with kindness and respect, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual preference.
So. According to Amp, there is order in the universe, or “should be” (which is the same thing, for what is this ideal against which we are measuring human society?), and this order is founded on the idea that we are good, and should be good to one another.
How this works out to “saying no to God” is a complete mystery to me. Bear in mind, Rand, that not everyone who disagrees with your sect about the details of life is thereby “saying no to God.” That’s WAY too big a statement.
oh, btw, my last post above was very tongue-in-cheek, in case anyone was wondering.
I have some wonderful Christian friends, and we have made similar jokes together, so it in no way is meant to disparage those of you here that do believe (in fact I respect your ability to still have faith when so much of it is being hijacked by those that would use it for hate and violence).
:)
Sarah, if you think hate and violence are wrong, you and I have a lot in common.
But I say to you, do not judge, for the measure which you measure out to another will be the measure which is applied to you.
-Jesus of Nazareth
Susan, I suspect we (and I use that in a wider sense) have lot more in common than a lot of us realise or are supposed to think.
Oh, and I loved your post above. I can’t speak for Amp of course, but as an atheist, thank you :)
Susan, great post!
Those who asked about “preborn”: I sometimes use it as a blanket term referring to “Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo, or Fetus.” Just seems like a good, relatively neutral term to me, plus it emphasizes birth as a dividing line.
ACM, nothing was cut – just the opposite, Michael missed cutting something. My AOL Messanger screenname is “ItsAmpersand”; in that particular case, Michael forgot to cut the “ItsAmpersand:” from the transcript.
Taking the definition in this way, for myself I doubt that there are any real atheists outside of mental asylums. Someone who is an “atheist”? because he or she does not subscribe to the description in the immediately preceding paragraph is someone who has no values at all, who believes that there are no values, that the universe and human society are at bottom senseless. Such a person could not be a scientist (for science is founded on the opposite presumption) and we could not live with him or her in safety, for he or she would acknowledge no rights in anyone else.
Well that’s because that’d be a very misconstrued, absurd notion of ‘atheism’. It is an existing philosophical (if you like) approach to reality, not an hypothetical refusal of any law, any order, any rights, any meaning.
Of course atheists believe in meaning and ethics. But it’s not an ethics that needs a religious validation, or arbitrary ‘inclusion’ into a religious belief. That’s the sense in which real atheists ‘say no to God’. They don’t believe in a god as the source of all meaning.
A minor side point in the above exchange, perhaps, but an important one nonetheless, I think.
Of course, that that notion of atheism as absence of meaning and ethics was indeed a clichéd absurd one might be the very point that was being made (I wasn’t sure about it), in that case, ignore above post…
noodles,
I think I might be an atheist too. In your sense.
I dunno about that, noodles. My atheism consists of a belief that life, the universe & everything have no meaning and no point. Not only is there no god of any sort, but there is no universal standard of ethics. So I don’t believe in meaning (other than that which we subjectively place) in existence. Nor do I believe that morality or ethics are anything but self-imposed. But it is a grave mistake to construe that to mean that I don’t have morality or ethics – all of us do. And, really, that’s no different than a person of faith. If that person doesn’t come from your social group, you need to find out what morals & ethics they have so that you know what you are dealing with.
My morals & ethics are more in line with what Ampersand has outlined in his interview than they are with the morals and ethics that I hear espoused by the religious right. I don’t think anybody in this country should be homeless or hungry or without health-care. I don’t care why they are homeless, etc (& most are people with serious psychological or physical problems). We, as a society, have a responsibility to other members of our society and not just to ourselves.
So there you have it. Atheism has a wide variety of beliefs and morals and ethics under that one label. Just like Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or any other faith you care to name.
A Christian would disagree with only one of these phrases: “in this country.” This is something we would wish for every human being. The difference, I suppose, is what we can do. I believe we can accomplish this goal in this country. We have less power elsewhere, but I think we have a responsibility at least not to do things that make these goals more difficult in the rest of the world.
If the “religious right” disagrees with these goals – notice, I said goals, not methods – then they are not Christians, whatever they say about themselves.
Now, not everyone feels that government action is the best way to achieve these goals. However, those who have some other method in mind are obliged, I think, to pursue that, and to demonstrate that it works at least to some degree. (We have to remember that government action does not work perfectly either. Nothing does.)
I said, “…in this country,” because, at this point, that is a realistic goal. I don’t believe any person should be without food, shelter or health care, but I believe that we should start locally and expand.
It seems to me both that the religious right believes that it is sink or swim on your own (although that sometimes includes ones family or very local community) and that the religious right puts forth methods that have been proven not to work (charitable organizations) over the course of centuries. Look what’s happened just during the last 5 years – taxes lowered, social programs gutted and charitable contributions down by a huge percentage. So really, what’s the difference between the far-rights preferred (and disproven) methods and the belief that one has no societal obligation to help those worst off in our community?
A very fair question. When someone advocates for a “solution” which has not, by and large, worked in the past, and which (oh by the way) doesn’t cost him anything (unlike governmental solutions, which raise taxes), then perhaps it is time to ask a few questions about how sincere this alleged desire to help might be.
I participate in a lot of blogs, including several very right-wing Catholic blogs. While these folks seem quite sincere in their worship, and are edifyingly (from my point of view) opposed to abortion, their attitudes when the homeless come up are anything but encouraging. It’s their own fault, they smell, they shouldn’t be in the church building (!!) and so forth. Thus I, like you, suspect that the alleged disagreement about the best method to help these people is, in fact, based on a reluctance to be inconvenienced to do anything.
Consider this, however, you lefties. Many people on the streets are mentally ill, as several have observed. Very many of these refuse to take medication for their illness (and many meds are only partly effective anyway). They further, perhaps under the influence of their illness, state that they do not want housing – at least not if having that housing requires that they respect the rules of the house or the other people living there. (I am thinking of one individual in particular here, though his numbers are legion.)
So. What would you advise? Making housing available to this person will not get him off the streets because he is (a) too sick to understand the situation, and (b) unwilling to respect the people he would live with. Would you move him indoors by force, perhaps to a locked facility, and medicate him involunarily?
Or does he have the “freedom” to live on the streets so long as he doesn’t break the law?
In any case, “sink or swim on your own” is not a value to be found in the teachings of Jesus, but hey, we wouldn’t want to listen to him at all, right?
Jake, of course, I didn’t mean that an atheist believes in an absolute, universal meaning, or that everything has to have a meaning and a point and an ultimate goal, that’d be a religious notion… I meant it in that sense you say.
But it is a grave mistake to construe that to mean that I don’t have morality or ethics – all of us do.
Exactly, that was my point basically.
Ok I’ll take the bait… :-)
Would you move him indoors by force, perhaps to a locked facility, and medicate him involunarily?
No. Absolutely not. I think it would be highly unethical. Forcing anyone to do anything, is unethical, and even more so for a mentally ill person. To me, that possibility is not even to be contemplated. (The image of the evil nurse in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest just came to mind…)
I don’t believe in ‘sink or swim on your own’, but I don’t believe in help as something enforced against the other person’s will either. It’s a rather extreme proposition.
Or does he have the “freedom”? to live on the streets so long as he doesn’t break the law?
Yes, absolutely, as a principle. By definition, if someone is not breaking any law, or harming anybody else, they should be free to do whatever they want to do. Even if it’s against their wellbeing.
However, I also would put that “freedom” in quotes in this specific example, as it’s not very common for people to freely embrace a life on the streets after having voluntarily discarded better alternatives that were easily available to them… Plus I’m not fond of either/or choices and I would think there are other possibilities, to offer help without forcing it on people; persuading someone to accept help, by still respecting their dignity.
I guess it depends on individual cases but honestly I haven’t come across many examples of homeless people, mentally ill or not, who would refuse a hot meal and a nice bed at a centre set up specifically to help the homeless or a charity or such. Or even a temporary job. Of course, if there are conditions put on that help that put the person in an uneasy situation, then it’s not really help either. The ‘weaker’ and more fragile the situation that person is in, the more unconditional the help given has to be.
That image of Eric Cartman dancing (from mousehounde comment) is “the real McCoy”!
I would really like to know why bible-brained people think they’ve got the monopoly of Jesus teachings…
I think that, when we die, if the materialist and/or atheist point of view gets disproved (else, it won’t matter…) those guys are prone to get a big surprise!
Well, noodles, I wish that kind of help were really available. Or, possible.
In San Francisco, “Care Not Cash” is trying to move the hard-core homeless into rooms. An apartment of your own. However, they are also requiring a minimum standard of behavior – no drunkeness or dealing, you have to show up for appointments with a social worker, no attacking other tenants in the building, on and on. From accounts in the Chronicle, many of the mentally ill cannot, say, show up for appointments on time, or at all, mostly as a result of their illness (which, of course, is unmedicated unless they accept medication, which they tend not to). They end up being thrown out.
I know at least one mentally ill homeless man personally who would not – does not – accept the deal you outline, because it would restrict his ability to use marijuana (with which he is self-medicating, I believe). Truly unconditional help would be wonderful for this guy and many like him, but for a variety of obvious reasons that’s not so easy to come by.
Like you, I respect his freedom, though I wish we had better choices to offer him than shivering outdoors in the rain all winter.
My point was really just that there are problems without solutions; that even large-scale government-funded assistance would not necessarily reach everyone who needs it unless we are willing to compromise other values which are important to us.
I’m gonna take the bait on this one too … so lemmie preface this with a “my, and ONLY my 0.02” :)
Or at least, just taking a shot here …
“Would you move him indoors by force, perhaps to a locked facility, and medicate him involunarily?”
IF, and ONLY IF it were diagnosed that that man/woman was a danger to his/her own self and/or others. Then I think it’s our social responsibility as responsible members of a caring society to ensure that something is done about this. We have levels of culpability and mental ability in our society in other arenas of our culture, so I don’t see why this couldn’t stretch to this. Is it a perfect yardstick? Hell no, it’s certainly a framework that could be open to abuse. But I think it’s one of the best I have come up with.
“Or does he have the “freedom”? to live on the streets so long as he doesn’t break the law?”
I’m with noodles on this one. I think VERY few homeless people actually would describe living on the streets as ‘freedom’. We have people dying on the streets here in Chicago during the summer and winter, and that’s not freedom to them. BUT, that all said, should someone honestly decide for themselves that the streets is where they would rather be and they are in mental health, then I think it would truely be required of me to allow him/her her to do so.
I actually see this as a personal issue as gay youth are PHENOMENONLY overrepresented in the statistics of homeless youth. And often you hear from some conservatives “well, they chose to leave their parents’ homes”. Oiy. Yeah, there’s a choice, abuse and degradation with a roof, vs. scrabbling for scraps of food and being yourself. I was lucky when mine threw me out, I had a job so I was able to put myself through college. But I’m an exception in regard to youth thrown out.
As an atheist I am offended by Susan’s first post,
[QUOTE] Taking the definition in this way, for myself I doubt that there are any real atheists outside of mental asylums. Someone who is an “atheist”? because he or she does not subscribe to the description in the immediately preceding paragraph is someone who has no values at all, who believes that there are no values, that the universe and human society are at bottom senseless. Such a person could not be a scientist (for science is founded on the opposite presumption) and we could not live with him or her in safety, for he or she would acknowledge no rights in anyone else. [/QUOTE]
even if she then backpedals to agree with Noodles and Jake Squid.
For the record: atheists are not better or worse people than god-believers. And speaking of living in safety: we have burned fewer people at the stakes then the god-believers.
So, I did some thinking on the matter. I looked at all the people Christians were saying were going to hell, and those that they said would be going to heaven. And damn if the more fun and interesting (including my entire dating pool) people were ending up in hell.
Hehe, Sarah, that’s what I meant as well by saying we’d be in good company. Not sure Heaven consists of a bunch of bible thumping Christians that lack any humility what so ever. In fact….
Kim –
“Hehe, Sarah, that’s what I meant as well by saying we’d be in good company. Not sure Heaven consists of a bunch of bible thumping Christians that lack any humility what so ever. In fact….”
*grin* Yeah, if that’s the after-life reward for giving yourself to God, then all the more of a reason not to believe in Him, I have to say (old testament wrathful deity it appears to be here) …. who was it that said: “Jesus, save me from your followers!”
No, you’re all wrong. I have it on good authority that the Christian heaven is going to look like a beach on which Dennis Madalone walks with his arms open, singing “we stand as one”, followed by angels who look like semi-transparent gif’s.
I have a question about one of Ampersand’s answers in the interview regarding illegal immigration.
Ampersand said:
I am not sure I understand the reasoning that “illegal immigrants” provide an economic benefit to the U.S..
From the CIS
“Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.”
“On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household. ”
“We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change. “
WRT illegal immigrants and school revenues
…the enormous impact of large-scale illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.
In 2000, about 126,000 illegal immigrants under 21 were enrolled in college, according to research from the Congressional Research Service.11 Using 2000 data, we calculated that at non-resident tuition rates, they would be paying between $503 million and $655 million annually. If they were made eligible for in-state tuition discounts, they would be paying less than one-third of that amount, i.e., $155 million to $201 millionÂleaving taxpayers to make up the difference of $348 million to $454 million.12
And none of that even touches the medical costs: In California alone Uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $1.4 billion a year. In Arizona, hospitals are closing or cutting back on services for everyone because of the costs of illegals.
Now, perhaps I am looking at things wrong. Maybe I am looking at the wrong numbers. But how are illegal immigrants benefiting the US economically?
I really don’t know enough about immigration to discuss it intelligently; I wouldn’t have brought it up if Michael hadn’ t asked the question.
When I talked about the economic benefit, I was thinking specifically of Social Security and Medicare. Even according to the link you provide, immigrants are a net benefit in these two areas:- “We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.”
They go on to say that the positive effect here is overwhelmed by negative effects elsewhere, and to suggest that future legal changes may change the Social Security benefit.
Im not sure that the CIR – which is a very right-wing group – is necessarily providing the full story. Maybe they are telling the full truth – they seem pretty credible – or maybe not; I’m not qualified to tell.
Certainly, any overall accounting should include not just federal taxes, but also state taxes, sales taxes, and non-tax contributions (like money spent in the USA, benefiting American retailers).
Here’s some alternative arguments, suggesting that when you look at the total picture, undocumented immigrants are a net plus for the US economically (from the blog Detainment):
I can’ t vouch for any of the above, but it – like the info you linked to – seems credible.
Regarding education, to count the tuition illegal immigrants pay as a net loss because legal immigrants pay more, is illogical. If we charged illegal immigrants full tuition, many of them would not attend college, meaning they pay no tuition at all – not a net benefit for school budgets.
Insofar as illegal immigrants cost money, it’s because they generally have low levels of income, which limits how much they pay in taxes. We should therefore view money spent educating illegal immigrants and their children as an investment; in the long term, better-educated workers (illegal or not) means more taxes paid and higher productivity, benefitting the whole economy.
The question is very complex. However, on the college issue, you’ve got a false logic.
If we charge illegals full tuition, and as a result they don’t attend college, we don’t lose money. We don’t gain any money, but it isn’t a loss. They aren’t coming, and we aren’t paying for the cost of educating them. The ones who do come, we make money from, as full tuition is more than cost.
If we charge them in-state rates, it’s a net loss. In-state rates are the subsidized rates; that tuition does not cover cost, not even close. The remainder is closed by direct state subsidies to the schools (which are going away here in Colorado; not sure about elsewhere.)
So they represent a drain on the state coffers if they’re paying in-state rates (as do legal residents – but legal residents are more reliably expected to keep their money in-state in future years, rather than remitting to family in Mexico).
So from the perspective of the University bursar, it is better to have a few illegals paying full freight than a bunch of illegals paying regular rates.
But as you say, it is very complex. Anybody who claims a sweeping up-or-down can be safely dismissed as a rhetorician.
Oh, I hadn’t realized that in-state tuition didn’t cover expenses. My bad; thanks for the correction.
As you say, it’s a complex question. Even with the correction you point out, it’s possible that the benefit of college-educated illegals (who, on average, pay higher taxes) to the US economy mitigates or overwhelms the costs of subsidizing tuition. I couldn’t say for sure either way.
However, given that illegal immigrants are going to live in the US no matter what, my reflex is to try and err (within reason) on the side of improving their lives.
Yeah, I tend to take a pragmatic approach myself. These people want to be here. It isn’t hard for them to get here. I wouldn’t object strenuously to a serious effort to block the border so that they can’t get here (and make the Mexican government start addressing its social problems) but failing that exertion of will, it seems like we have to be realistic. It’s stupid to pretend that things are other than they are.
And also, as a good member of the landed gentry, I’ve seen that there are positive social benefits to the immigration of people of a much lower socioeconomic status. I know that there are costs that aren’t directly perceived, but the benefit side of it is real.
Specifically, I am thinking of Chopi, a young Mexican/Indian girl who crossed the Rio Grande and ended up as a nurse and aide to my grandmother during the last ten years or so of her life, when she was living with my aunt and uncle in a guest house. Chopi got a standard of living about, oh, say, infinity times better than she left behind in Chiapas (I think); my family got loving personal care for someone who was very sick, which meant that grandma spent her last years surrounded by family who weren’t totally stressed out by the demands of her care instead of being stuck in a home, turned over three times a day by an orderly.
(After grandma died, Chopi stayed on in the guest house and tended the livestock and the garden and helped out around the house for my aunt; now my aunt is about to retire and Chopi and her somewhat-more-legal husband are buying a house in San Antonio.)
Yeah, if Chopi hadn’t been there to fill the job, Aunt Jan could have hired an American to do it…except the American would have wanted $75k a year,wouldn’t have wanted to live on-site, etc. Grandma would have ended up in the home.
I try and remember Chopi whenever I find myself thinking “close the border.”
Ampersand, I don’t know much about it either. The reason I asked was that when you say things, you pretty much have info and statistics to back you up. I have tried looking around for information on the subject and all I do is confuse myself. Sites I come across are either of the “Illegal Immigrants bad! Guns, barbed wire, good!” variety, or the “Open the borders! The more the better!” types. And even the sites that seem even minded contradict themselves when it comes to the numbers and money. So the more I look around, the more certain I become that there is no answer, at least no correct answer. Thank you for your reply.
Those who asked about “preborn”?: I sometimes use it as a blanket term referring to “Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo, or Fetus.”? Just seems like a good, relatively neutral term to me, plus it emphasizes birth as a dividing line.
Amp,
The majority of preembryos are spontaneously aborted, so “preborn” would be an incorrect term to describe those stages. “In utero” would emphasis birth as a dividing line, no?
Pingback: Feministe » Interview on Feminism with Bob Hayes
Pingback: kiwi_grrl: a momentary fleeting thing ...