LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksdel
10Likes
July 6th, 2013, 09:23 PM
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:07 PM.
In a perfect world.
Three things I know about a centralised world government: it's a government, of the world, that's centralised.
(With no apologies to Blackadder).
Oh, FOUR things 1: it doesn't exist, ergo you can make up whatever you like about it.
You have a predilection for essentially meaningless questions, don't you?
1 Apologies to Monty Python - you didn't expect THAT, did you?
Don't want a centralized, world government. The US or China would be in charge and dictate behavior of other societies even more than they already do. It would be colonial rule all over again.
Unchecked power is not a good thing. A single world government would have nobody to oppose it when it's wrong.
I'd be hard to establish a governing body on both 0 latitude and 0 longitude.
Shlunka for World Pres!!
I'm making pornography and beer mandatory in elementary schools, as well as education on the proper usage of condoms as they pertain to making party balloons. Anyone who disagrees with me will be brought before a court, shot in both kneecaps, then pictured with the caption "(Insert Name) bows before the rule of shlunka!" in the local "and only" newspaper.
That is a stupid idea. Ever hear the phrase "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? It's true for governments too, and a world government would have absolute power by definition.
Oil drilling platform maybe? Floating island city?Originally Posted by shlunka
Horrible.
Inevitable.
I hope though it will be more of a Federalist model, where nations still retain considerable autonomy and enough latitude and protections to preserve the amazing cultural diversity multi-nationals are in large part destroying now.
It seems thing could be heading that way. We already have central banking systems and a world economy.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:08 PM.
International trade is pretty far from international legislation. One lets products and (to a lesser degree) services go to where there is more demand from where there is more supply (more freedom). The other tells everyone "obey my rules, there literally isn't another option" and has all of the military in the world to back it up. (far less freedom).
Cultural diversity is your big concern? That's going to die with or without a world government. Entertainment is gradually clumping together into one mass. Eventually everyone will have Netflix, or Dish Network, or Direct TV, and the best TV shows from around the world will get packed together by category and show back to back with each other.
Any given TV show might be Russian, Korean, Mexican ... could be from anywhere. And you won't be able to tell where. They'll all be copying each other (just like networks do already in the USA.)
Last edited by kojax; July 7th, 2013 at 02:57 PM.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:08 PM.
Nations can opt out of the UN if they want. Even with that holding their powers back, there are still problems with it.What about the united nation?International trade is pretty far from international legislation. One lets products and (to a lesser degree) services go to where there is more demand from where there is more supply (more freedom). The other tells everyone "obey my rules, there literally isn't another option" and has all of the military in the world to back it up. (far less freedom).
Criticism of the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An actual world government wouldn't allow people to "opt out". Also, no one would be able to leave if they did join (similar to the US's policy of not allowing states to seceed once they join). Couple that with the fact that in order to get out of their jurisdiction you would literally have to move to space and start a colony. Even then they'd probably either cut you off from supplies or take you over, whichever would work best.
Yes. I'm old enough to see the erosion in regional cultures in the US, and to have traveled overseas and recognized the same process happening. I think there's inherent value to different cultures that doesn't get nearly enough attention. Lose of culture plays directly into instability and resentment as well.
(similar to the US's policy of not allowing states to seceed once they join)
Not really true. Most analysis of the Constitution point towards leaving using a very similar process to acceptance; states dont' join on their own--nor can the leave on their own---it takes approval of many other states making it difficult to go in either direction.
What do you think is killing it? People are copying each other. American culture is becoming increasingly foreign also. Pizza is becoming an American dish instead of an Italian one. All you can eat buffets are virtually unheard of in mainland China. Bean burritos will be American soon.Yes. I'm old enough to see the erosion in regional cultures in the US, and to have traveled overseas and recognized the same process happening. I think there's inherent value to different cultures that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
If you see something you like in another culture, you adopt it into your own. They adopt something of yours, and it keeps going back and forth. Eventually you can't distinguish one culture from the other.
The only way to maintain a "salad bowl" is if people just reticently refuse, absolutely and determinedly - to never learn anything from the other culture. It's the intellectual equivalent of Luddites. It's just people who are afraid of change.
"Melting Pot" is the natural model people would go to if they weren't getting preached to.
A lot of people resent change of any kind . Doesn't really matter what kind.Lose of culture plays directly into instability and resentment as well.
Also I think a lot of Muslims blame the deterioration of their culture for the humiliations their countries have suffered on the battle field over the last century. If so then they're scapegoating. I don't see any particular reason to take scapegoating seriously.
So long as I'm in charge.
I will be needing an oversized swivel chair for my extraordinarily large desk and an open fireplace in my office. I will also need a very fluffy cat that is fond of sitting on my lap and being stroked whilst I ponder solutions for the world's problems.
I'd ask for a death-ray satellite, or at least a nice particle cannon satellite. Every evil supervillan needs a death ray.So long as I'm in charge.
I will be needing an oversized swivel chair for my extraordinarily large desk and an open fireplace in my office. I will also need a very fluffy cat that is fond of sitting on my lap and being stroked whilst I ponder solutions for the world's problems.
That is only one small part. What often happens is largely unregulated multinational-corporate drive out local cultural variations often by taking a short term loss to undercut and kill off the local businesses; often by using knowledge of advertising, product placement, and even occasionally via force. Once the local producers collapse they are free to raise prices and substitute an inferior product at will.What do you think is killing it? People are copying each other.Yes. I'm old enough to see the erosion in regional cultures in the US, and to have traveled overseas and recognized the same process happening. I think there's inherent value to different cultures that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
That's not cultural substitution. That's predatory business practices. No wonder all these corporations want to go multi-national. They just want to be free to do unethical business.That is only one small part. What often happens is largely unregulated multinational-corporate drive out local cultural variations often by taking a short term loss to undercut and kill off the local businesses; often by using knowledge of advertising, product placement, and even occasionally via force. Once the local producers collapse they are free to raise prices and substitute an inferior product at will.What do you think is killing it? People are copying each other.Yes. I'm old enough to see the erosion in regional cultures in the US, and to have traveled overseas and recognized the same process happening. I think there's inherent value to different cultures that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
But if you want to cure that via cultural diversity, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Cultural diversity won't make any difference. Their cultures may be why they have poorly structured laws that are easily exploited. The quicker they change the better.
It is both.
Indeed, given a choice they would prefer to have no limitations without any regard for harming locals where they operate. This is also why we need international standards.No wonder all these corporations want to go multi-national. They just want to be free to do unethical business.
Even well structured laws have limits in the face of uncrupulous corporations that can buy off corrupt officials, hire people to physically harm people (and their families) in their way, build barriers that screw over local businesses, inundate them with a long list of minor by expensive legal challenges backed by essentially unlimited lawyer money, all combined with advanced marketing strategies that exploit rural people's naivety.Their cultures may be why they have poorly structured laws that are easily exploited.
It seems that regulators need to enact and properly enforce stronger anti trust laws to ensure fair competition. The problem is for many big companies it seems loss leaders are standard operating practices in new markets, they don't seem to think this practice is unethical and are quite happy to see small local firms go to the wall because of it.That is only one small part. What often happens is largely unregulated multinational-corporate drive out local cultural variations often by taking a short term loss to undercut and kill off the local businesses; often by using knowledge of advertising, product placement, and even occasionally via force. Once the local producers collapse they are free to raise prices and substitute an inferior product at will.What do you think is killing it? People are copying each other.Yes. I'm old enough to see the erosion in regional cultures in the US, and to have traveled overseas and recognized the same process happening. I think there's inherent value to different cultures that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
We need to financially incentivise fair competition so that ethical practice is always considered the 'normal' way to do business, but also so it proves to be the most profitable. One possible way forward to achieving this might be to directly tax sales volume, not profits because these are often shifted about from one area to another to exploit tax legislation, within individual areas. This could be implimented with an intial allowance given and a higher tax rate applicable on larger sales volume, should help to level the playing field to help smaller local companies and make it less lucrative for larger multinationals to corner the market.
Of course this will only work if the regulators arn't allowed to remain in bed with big business, but solving this problem is a whole new issue in of itself.
Personally, the thought of a Centralized World Government is a lot like "imagine all the world living life in peace..." I can imagine it and all the wonderful things it *could* be, but the wonderful things get crowded out of my thoughts by the cynicism I feel based upon our collective behavior throughout history. I am skeptical that we have evolved anywhere near the point at which we could make such a government function for even the most basic good of all. The potential for abuses would far outnumber the possibilities for providing the benefits government is supposed to provide.
I can't see it making all that much difference really, it would still have to be administered on a more local level, so you'd still get the discrepancies just like we already have with different countries. What would end up is pretty much what we have already, and that is, rules and regulations being enforced at national level, by this centralized world government, to benefit rich and powerful countries, only they wouldn't be countries any longer, nope, just rich and powerful areas of the world. Not really all that different from what you can find in virtually any country around the world already, a dichotomy of relative wealth and poverty. Or you end up with a level of totalitarianism that makes life just about pretty unbearable everywhere, think the end of capitalism and no incentive for people to be successful anymore, this is what pretty much happened in the Soviet Union where people ended queing for 4 hours to buy a loaf of bread, not exactly a cheerful prospect that one, but thankfully also far less likely as well.
So, I think you and I are on the same page. Yes, the enforcement of regulations to the benefit of the very wealthy at the expense of the poor (or in other words the powerful over the weak) would likely continue as it has from the beginning. And with the more advanced technology and ever-increasing potential for intrusion and control in the hands of this all encompassing government I doubt that the gulf between the top and the bottom of world-wide society would diminish.
I can't see it making all that much difference really, it would still have to be administered on a more local level, so you'd still get the discrepancies just like we already have with different countries. What would end up is pretty much what we have already, and that is, rules and regulations being enforced at national level, by this centralized world government, to benefit rich and powerful countries, only they wouldn't be countries any longer, nope, just rich and powerful areas of the world. Not really all that different from what you can find in virtually any country around the world already, a dichotomy of relative wealth and poverty. Or you end up with a level of totalitarianism that makes life just about pretty unbearable everywhere, think the end of capitalism and no incentive for people to be successful anymore, this is what pretty much happened in the Soviet Union where people ended queing for 4 hours to buy a loaf of bread, not exactly a cheerful prospect that one, but thankfully also far less likely as well.
I have difficulty imagining a more peaceful world under a centralized world government. Throughout the world, divided as it is, we witness the constant rise of factions with competing interests. (This phenomenon is as constant among humans as is the enmity among competing species in nature.) Thus, in my imaginings a centralized world government becomes established only to eventually draw itself inward (siege mentality) for inability the maintain order across the globe unless it resorts to brute force and mass exterminations.
Interesting observations, and I think it more likely that a centralized world government (at least in the next 100 years) is easier to imagine as a kind of global corporate oligarchy than anything we've seen so far in history.International trade is pretty far from international legislation. One lets products and (to a lesser degree) services go to where there is more demand from where there is more supply (more freedom). The other tells everyone "obey my rules, there literally isn't another option" and has all of the military in the world to back it up. (far less freedom).
I also believe that cultural diversity is to be valued and to varying degrees encouraged, or rather that suppression of diversity is counter to our ultimate best interests. I agree with the observations above that cultures change and adapt. I don't think there is such a thing as a non-changing culture. I believe that any two individuals *change* merely by interacting with each other--to a large extent it is impossible to avoid. Similarly, as soon as any two cultures make contact they begin to change. I think it is a fascinating phenomenon.What do you think is killing it? People are copying each other. American culture is becoming increasingly foreign also. Pizza is becoming an American dish instead of an Italian one. All you can eat buffets are virtually unheard of in mainland China. Bean burritos will be American soon.Yes. I'm old enough to see the erosion in regional cultures in the US, and to have traveled overseas and recognized the same process happening. I think there's inherent value to different cultures that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
If you see something you like in another culture, you adopt it into your own. They adopt something of yours, and it keeps going back and forth. Eventually you can't distinguish one culture from the other.
The only way to maintain a "salad bowl" is if people just reticently refuse, absolutely and determinedly - to never learn anything from the other culture. It's the intellectual equivalent of Luddites. It's just people who are afraid of change. ...
Cultures do change and evolve, share, merge and split, a kind of organic process, but I do not think they become indistinguishable because they share feature X or Y. Differences remain, and new ideas can take root faster in one social environment than another, and sub cultures grow faster or slower. You cannot measure culture by visiting a region as a tourist, the presence of a McDonald doenst mean the culture is the same as another place where there is a McDonalds, I swear people are oblivious to this reality (some Americans in particular that often assume the culture is the same as their own because they "notice" similarities and project inaccurate assumptions)What do you think is killing it? People are copying each other. American culture is becoming increasingly foreign also. Pizza is becoming an American dish instead of an Italian one. All you can eat buffets are virtually unheard of in mainland China. Bean burritos will be American soon.
If you see something you like in another culture, you adopt it into your own. They adopt something of yours, and it keeps going back and forth. Eventually you can't distinguish one culture from the other.
Yes. And I have personally experienced what you describe--having been on various sides leading to misunderstanding at times, haha.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:08 PM.
The part part about some Americans was wrong, theyre just the first examples that came to mind, but now that i think about it, its common for anyone to initially project what he is familiar with to other cultures. Until you realize its different. That happens to me too.
DO you think it would be possible to maintain individual cultures in a Centralized World Government? I certainly do not think that would be possible. I would see that a huge problem.....and one that would cause conflicts. Just asking.I also believe that cultural diversity is to be valued and to varying degrees encouraged, or rather that suppression of diversity is counter to our ultimate best interests. I agree with the observations above that cultures change and adapt. I don't think there is such a thing as a non-changing culture. I believe that any two individuals *change* merely by interacting with each other--to a large extent it is impossible to avoid. Similarly, as soon as any two cultures make contact they begin to change. I think it is a fascinating phenomenon.What do you think is killing it? People are copying each other. American culture is becoming increasingly foreign also. Pizza is becoming an American dish instead of an Italian one. All you can eat buffets are virtually unheard of in mainland China. Bean burritos will be American soon.Yes. I'm old enough to see the erosion in regional cultures in the US, and to have traveled overseas and recognized the same process happening. I think there's inherent value to different cultures that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
If you see something you like in another culture, you adopt it into your own. They adopt something of yours, and it keeps going back and forth. Eventually you can't distinguish one culture from the other.
The only way to maintain a "salad bowl" is if people just reticently refuse, absolutely and determinedly - to never learn anything from the other culture. It's the intellectual equivalent of Luddites. It's just people who are afraid of change. ...
[QUOTE=babe;438989][QUOTE=This Desert Man;438342][QUOTE=kojax;437778]We are maintaining individual cultures fairly well here in the US where we have people from practically every nation.
Just a quick Caveat:"We are maintaining individual cultures fairly well here in the US where we have people from practically every nation."
Can a Polish person walk into any store or any hospital and talk Polish with people understanding what he is saying? Because he could do that in Poland, but I was not aware that people in the US were multilingual to that extent. Can a lady from an African village walk around with bare breasts without getting faces form people around? If someone comes from a non police state culture, can they say, "oh no, you dont understand my blue gloved friend, the TSA check point doesnt apply to me, Im from a different culture"? When a family is incinerated by a predator drone's missile, is there a small leaflet that falls saying "Hello, Im from Switzeland but in the US, I apologize for killing you, its against my culture's values to throw bombs in other countries, and since the US is maintaining our culture fairly well we are allowed to include leaflet apologies for killing you like this". If a culture is opposed to death penalty? This month we draw a counties name from a hat, to determine if people and the mentally retarded on death row are murdered by the state this month, if a progressive country like Saudi Arabia or Iran is drawn from the hat, executions go on, but if a country like a no good socialist european country is drawn the death penalty is postponed?
A Minestrone soup may include different vegetables and noodles, but its still a Minestrone soup, the US includes cultural elements from various nations, but it has its own flavor, or culture, and sub cultures. One factor that determines if a given aspect of another culture will be maintained in the US Soup, is if that ingredient is part of the recipe for the US culture soup. So praying in a mosque might make it, but the fine art of Stonning a women for adultery might be considered to be mushrooms that are not part of the US Soup recipe. I agree however, that its much easier to maintain a good number of cultural aspects in the US , than, in, lets say, Saudi Arabia, for example (unless its maintaining the Saudi culture of course).
Its my point of view
A central government would not prevent a variety of cultures from existing, cultures being organic and fluid with sub cultures forming and growing, but, it would most probably erode diversity and also NOT represent the values/reality/preferences/priorities of people very well, the same way 31 baskets of Pistachio Ice cream does not meet the preferences of many people as well as 1 Pistachio ice cream basket and 30 other different and diverse flavors.
There are areas in major cities where people from a culture will form their own community (china town, or a jewish neighborhood, etc.), but I can see what you're saying.
A centralized world government is on the agenda of transnational progressivists. This socialist idealism seems to be embraced by socialist democrats like Obama and Hollande.
Fonte | The Ideological War Within the West
"The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool.Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.
?"transnational progressivists"
It sounds like they pulled a new label out of their, hats, and apply it to a bunch of different people all over the world who never heard of it.
Why not just Globalists?
Could you provide an example of something that is bothering you?
(Im opposed to global government, but not to international cooperation)
Last edited by icewendigo; July 11th, 2013 at 12:38 PM.
One can guess that the liberties we enjoy in the USA will be greatly diminished in time as a result of socialist idealism. The reasons for less freedom will be public safety and public good. Eventually fairness becomes an issue and the question would be is why do the citizens of the USA and other western nations have more than us, shouldn't everyone share the wealth ?
Like what?
Imo you are already loosing liberties, the Patriot Act and Nazi TSA checkpoints and NSA wiretap was not made by Greenpeace activists in the Netherlands office, but by Neocons and the like in the US.
Are you hinting global communism?
"What could possibly go wrong?"
This is a problem with America's culture. We turn a blind eye when our military is used to strong arm the few scrupulous officials who won't be bought. It's greed plain and simple. Maybe a bit of both ignorance and greed. Greed because we foolishly think the corporations will pass some of that wealth onto the rest of us. Ignorance because actually they probably won't pass very much of it on to us. (The growing divide between wealthy and poor would tend to indicate they're keeping most of it for themselves.)It is both.
Indeed, given a choice they would prefer to have no limitations without any regard for harming locals where they operate. This is also why we need international standards.No wonder all these corporations want to go multi-national. They just want to be free to do unethical business.
Even well structured laws have limits in the face of uncrupulous corporations that can buy off corrupt officials, hire people to physically harm people (and their families) in their way, build barriers that screw over local businesses, inundate them with a long list of minor by expensive legal challenges backed by essentially unlimited lawyer money, all combined with advanced marketing strategies that exploit rural people's naivety.Their cultures may be why they have poorly structured laws that are easily exploited.
It's not a problem of lack of diversity. It's the overabundance of one very bad kind of culture that's our issue here. If we were not diverse, but also not greedy and foolish, I think the situation would be just fine.
I also believe that cultural diversity is to be valued and to varying degrees encouraged, or rather that suppression of diversity is counter to our ultimate best interests. I agree with the observations above that cultures change and adapt. I don't think there is such a thing as a non-changing culture. I believe that any two individuals *change* merely by interacting with each other--to a large extent it is impossible to avoid. Similarly, as soon as any two cultures make contact they begin to change. I think it is a fascinating phenomenon.What do you think is killing it? People are copying each other. American culture is becoming increasingly foreign also. Pizza is becoming an American dish instead of an Italian one. All you can eat buffets are virtually unheard of in mainland China. Bean burritos will be American soon.Yes. I'm old enough to see the erosion in regional cultures in the US, and to have traveled overseas and recognized the same process happening. I think there's inherent value to different cultures that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
If you see something you like in another culture, you adopt it into your own. They adopt something of yours, and it keeps going back and forth. Eventually you can't distinguish one culture from the other.
The only way to maintain a "salad bowl" is if people just reticently refuse, absolutely and determinedly - to never learn anything from the other culture. It's the intellectual equivalent of Luddites. It's just people who are afraid of change. ...
Deliberately suppressing diversity is foolish because it's a waste of effort. Diversity will gradually eliminate itself over time. Why try to deliberately push for something that's going to
A long time ago, you could travel around the USA and meet people with very different personalities and backgrounds who lived in different regions of the country. People often spoke with a very well defined local accent in their speech. Then Television was invented.
Now of course there are different ethnic identities, but almost everyone watches the same TV shows, and talks more or less with the same accent unless they're really trying to impress someone.
Hallelujah!! as in HOORAY!! AGREED!
Like the former Soviet Union a world government would need to control multi-culturalism with force. Military force like the Soviets employed cause resentment on those being forced into the new system. Whats needed is a way to coerce nations to join together in a common cause. This common cause could be as simple as the ability to join a world economy. The countries that cooperate are taken care of by the federation of countries that have united and those that don't are on their own. The countries that join give up their culture and control for the greater benefit of their citizens. State religion approved by the federation of countries would become the only religion. State language would be the official language.Are you hinting global communism?
This would be a blending of capitalism and socialism.
You'd need quite a lot of resources and/or money to bribe them constantly. Inevitably you'd end up needing to just plain rob them and give the money back if they cooperate. Otherwise you'd run the risk they might manage to become self sufficient, and maybe even more prosperous than the countries which are in the federation.
The USA's Federal Government does this kind of. It taxes the income of the states' citizens (making less tax money available for the states to collect), and then gives some of the money back to the states if they comply with certain standards.
I'm not saying I agree with it.
I think secularism is a good enough "state religion".State religion approved by the federation of countries would become the only religion. State language would be the official language.
This would be a blending of capitalism and socialism.
I think the most effective way to get people to give up their culture is simply to mock them. No need for guns or any of that. Just make fun of them so they feel stupid.
The USA's biggest and most powerful tool of control is its entertainment industry. Whatever becomes stylish in that industry will supplant a local population's sense of cultural right and wrong. It's too entertaining to quit watching or to boycott, and so people will watch things that offend their sense of decency in spite of themselves - which then requires them to rewrite their code of conduct in order to look at themselves in the mirror afterwards.
Muslims are right to be terrified of American entertainment. Well...... they are and they aren't. Once their culture is dead, their grandchildren probably won't miss it very much.
As for your comment about the Entertainment business.....some big big names give their support and MONEY..and it can become quite real....unfortunately, some BIG names are ill informed and stupid. *sweet smile*
You'd need quite a lot of resources and/or money to bribe them constantly. Inevitably you'd end up needing to just plain rob them and give the money back if they cooperate. Otherwise you'd run the risk they might manage to become self sufficient, and maybe even more prosperous than the countries which are in the federation.
The USA's Federal Government does this kind of. It taxes the income of the states' citizens (making less tax money available for the states to collect), and then gives some of the money back to the states if they comply with certain standards.
I'm not saying I agree with it.
I think secularism is a good enough "state religion".State religion approved by the federation of countries would become the only religion. State language would be the official language.
This would be a blending of capitalism and socialism.
I think the most effective way to get people to give up their culture is simply to mock them. No need for guns or any of that. Just make fun of them so they feel stupid.
The USA's biggest and most powerful tool of control is its entertainment industry. Whatever becomes stylish in that industry will supplant a local population's sense of cultural right and wrong. It's too entertaining to quit watching or to boycott, and so people will watch things that offend their sense of decency in spite of themselves - which then requires them to rewrite their code of conduct in order to look at themselves in the mirror afterwards.
Muslims are right to be terrified of American entertainment. Well...... they are and they aren't. Once their culture is dead, their grandchildren probably won't miss it very much.
Most of the Arabic speaking world is getting their entertainment from Egypt and Iran--it includes soap operas, music TV etc. It is generally reinforcing their culture, not destroying it and been going on for about two generations.Muslims are right to be terrified of American entertainment. Well...... they are and they aren't. Once their culture is dead, their grandchildren probably won't miss it very much.
And so say it won't be missed somewhat ignores the one of the more obvious examples of the vigorous culture wars going on in our own nation.
Yeah. I watched a documentary on Al Jazeera once. That was the impression I got, that most of the Muslim world watches Muslim entertainment. That is a pretty good defense mechanism.
However, those Muslims living in the USA or Western Europe may have a harder time keeping their entertainment tastes pure.
The culture wars going on in our nation, insofar as I've seen them, are just incredibly contrived, pushed wars. Being fought because some people just insist that it is wrong to lose cultural diversity and so they push, cajole, and guilt young people into joining the movement. Or sometimes just people with political ambition trying to make a division so they'll have a job. It's not exactly a spontaneous welling up of emotion.
Also some of the "old guard" type folks. You know, the ones who usually used to push it, are falling out of favor. Think about the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Who really listens to that guy these days?
I have to chuckle. Know a few private pilots (no, I do not get to fly that way, darn it) that tell me, the moment their Islam people are in the air, the booze, and all the forbidden foods are consumed. Interesting.
The pilot is probably exaggerating. While some do consume alcohol, they lament it much as Christians do the next day. I've known quite a few Muslims, none would even consider eating pork unless they didn't know or were seriously starving.
I am speaking from the cockpits of private jet pilots experiences that have been shared with me......and yes they liked their ham Sammy's. But back to their world...they revert to the non alcho and pork diet. These fly boys fly this clientele a lot.
| « Social Security..Do We Really Pay Less in than We Receive? | 2016 Election Candidates » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
