Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I used to live on the Orange line of the DC metro in a very Asian neighborhood in Arlington. There was a korean restaurant that was open 24 hours. we went there alot during normal hours. One night I woke up hungry at 3 AM and went there. It was 100% Korean customers. I sat at a table and was ignored for a while. eventually I left. The crowd cheered as I walked. In short, I'm sure what your asking about happens de facto. It probably happens in glatt kosher restaurants too (think of the knucleheads who won't sit next to a strange woman on an airplane)- but would a restaurant announce the policy? Ty may be right, but on the otherhand it may be a way to advertise how very specially they follow Koran/torah.

One of the things that I loved from the moment I moved to SF was how little of this sort of conduct I saw. I have been in restaurants, bars, stores where I was the only (except, possibly, for the person with me if I wasn't alone) straight person, non-Muslim, non-Latino, non-Asian, non-black person. I have not felt unwelcome. Give respect, get respect. My experience in other places, particularly east coast cities, has not been as good in this regard.

I recognize, of course, that even the negative experiences I've had in this regard are nothing compared to what, say, a black man experiences walking into a white crowd in many places. Here, too, what I see outside SF has been much worse. Two years ago I was in NYC for a trial, and when we went out with a paralegal from local counsel's office -- "we" being me and three paralegals from my office (one white, one Asian, one Latino) -- this woman, in front of people she had met that day and in a work capacity -- said "nigger" at least three times, called the Latino guy "hood-boy," talked about "getting some Mexicans" to do grunt work, and repeatedly marveled that the Asian woman (who grew up in Hong Kong) had a British-sounding accent.

Others' mileage may vary, but my own anecdotal experience has been pretty consistent here. I'm sure people have cheered when I left a room but it wasn't because of my race.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Others' mileage may vary, but my own anecdotal experience has been pretty consistent here. I'm sure people have cheered when I left a room but it wasn't because of my race.

You caught his point that's he'd frequented the restaurant during regular hours? That is the key factor here: they KNEW him.

I've been in unwelcoming spots before. I was once refused service at the Ritz. Despite growing up in white, rural America, there are parts of white, rural America that really just don't tom cotton to my kind (I know - y'all are shocked!). I have been yelled at by a black guy on the south side of Chicago who told me that he knew about white boys like me (I had on a Jesse Jackson button and was attending an event there) and I wasn't going to get his wimin and he'd cut me if I tried.

But the unwelcoming folks are most often self-declared real mercins than immigrants or racial minorities. And I expect they're even less welcoming to immigrants and minorities.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It doesn't sound abrasive, but I wonder where you live that you never go into an establishment owned by Muslims.

Sorry, don't follow you.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opi...n_kenya_attack

Why? I understand why we get blown up. I understand why cartoonists get murdered. I do not get why it advances radical Islam to kill people in a college in Kenya.

I don't understand why bees sting. I just wipe the nest out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Sidd, in case you missed it, Mulsims have noticed Indiana's new religious freedom. Think they can find a pizza place willing to cater polygamous weddings, in the name of Freedom!

Or maybe put a minaret next to a certain pizza shop calling the faithful to prayers? (zoning hypo for Atticus!)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Sidd, in case you missed it, Mulsims have noticed Indiana's new religious freedom. Think they can find a pizza place willing to cater polygamous weddings, in the name of Freedom!

Or maybe put a minaret next to a certain pizza shop calling the faithful to prayers? (zoning hypo for Atticus!)

In case you all misunderstood, what I was looking forward to was watching Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz deal with this sort of thing. Because, you know, freedom and Ayn Rand and the Baby Jesus maybe didn't work with this sort of thing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

In case you all misunderstood, what I was looking forward to was watching Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz deal with this sort of thing. Because, you know, freedom and Ayn Rand and the Baby Jesus maybe didn't work with this sort of thing.

Yeah, Bush and Cruz dealing with it may be amusing, but the more I think about it the more I really want to see Indiana fundies living side by side with calls to prayer and polygamy, because it will make the world a better place.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Good to see Mitt Romney's retirement going so well. I trust someone told him that picking Duke to win dooms any chance of a Nixonian come-back tour?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Good to see Mitt Romney's retirement going so well. I trust someone told him that picking Duke to win dooms any chance of a Nixonian come-back tour?

Nixon went to Duke.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So Obama has claimed the idea that engaging in business with countries as a way to transform them rather than using sanctions or the military for his own and labeled it the Obama Doctrine, and the neoconservatives are pissed.

Why don't republicans believe in the transformative power of capitalism? When did republicans come to hate capitalism?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So Obama has claimed the idea that engaging in business with countries as a way to transform them rather than using sanctions or the military for his own and labeled it the Obama Doctrine, and the neoconservatives are pissed.

Why don't republicans believe in the transformative power of capitalism? When did republicans come to hate capitalism?

Maybe Republicans don't believe in the transformative power of capitalism, but rather in rich people, and where a country has too many poor people and not enough rich people, bombing will help restore a more favorable balance.

Or not. Just a thought.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe Republicans don't believe in the transformative power of capitalism, but rather in rich people, and where a country has too many poor people and not enough rich people, bombing will help restore a more favorable balance.

Or not. Just a thought.

Much as I support Obama's efforts in Iran, this exchange is just echo-chamber b.s.

I'll leave aside the "bomb the poor" silliness. Instead, I would guess that both you and GGG have supported sanctions, versus the transformative power of a business relationship, in certain instances, in particular instances -- especially with respect to apartheid South Africa. So you and I could be accused of the same flip-flop as the GOP is engaging in, by supporting that sort of engagement with respect to Iran (and Cuba).

So, why? What makes these cases different?

For Cuba, it's that sanctions failed, the country poses no threat, and there is a real opportunity for constructive engagement through business and capitalism, because they might benefit the Cuban people broadly (and there's the leadership-transition issue).

For Iran, it's different. Sanctions actually worked there, and brought the regime to a point of wanting to make concessions. Just because sanctions have worked, doesn't mean that more sanctions is the right call; instead, we should reap the benefit here. If this deal closes, Iran will be further away from acquiring nukes than it is now (or was 8 years ago), and a verification regime will be in place. But the regime's power is such that I doubt we'll see a broad beneficial effect to capitalist engagement.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Much as I support Obama's efforts in Iran, this exchange is just echo-chamber b.s.

I'll leave aside the "bomb the poor" silliness. Instead, I would guess that both you and GGG have supported sanctions, versus the transformative power of a business relationship, in certain instances, in particular instances -- especially with respect to apartheid South Africa. So you and I could be accused of the same flip-flop as the GOP is engaging in, by supporting that sort of engagement with respect to Iran (and Cuba).

So, why? What makes these cases different?

For Cuba, it's that sanctions failed, the country poses no threat, and there is a real opportunity for constructive engagement through business and capitalism, because they might benefit the Cuban people broadly (and there's the leadership-transition issue).

For Iran, it's different. Sanctions actually worked there, and brought the regime to a point of wanting to make concessions. Just because sanctions have worked, doesn't mean that more sanctions is the right call; instead, we should reap the benefit here. If this deal closes, Iran will be further away from acquiring nukes than it is now (or was 8 years ago), and a verification regime will be in place. But the regime's power is such that I doubt we'll see a broad beneficial effect to capitalist engagement.

You know, there's a difference between a troll and an echo chamber.

Russia is a current hot-button sanctions issue, too. But the drop in oil prices may well be more effective than the sanctions. The most successful case of sanctions was indeed probably South Africa, but let's never kid ourselves into thinking sanctions alone would have done much.

I think sanctions (and boycotts) can be useful in the short term, but they have diminishing returns over time and if near-permanent can become counterproductive (see, Cuba).

Obama upped the sanctions on Iran and now is harvesting the rewards from taking them off. This is good diplomacy, using them where they work but relying on other levers for permanent gains.

I think encouraging the growth of Iranian capitalism can be huge and deeply transformative for Iran. But by capitalism I don't mean oil trading; I mean the same sort of thing that is going on in India with the help of the Indian diaspora can go on in Iran with the help of the Iranian diaspora. Can't wait to do some Iranian deals. And I know some Iranians who can't wait either.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You know, there's a difference between a troll and an echo chamber.

Fair point.

Russia is a current hot-button sanctions issue, too. But the drop in oil prices may well be more effective than the sanctions. The most successful case of sanctions was indeed probably South Africa, but let's never kid ourselves into thinking sanctions alone would have done much.

I agree that sanctions vs. Russia are not particularly meaningful. Disagree with respect to South Africa. It was the only real lever that we had, and it was effective from everything I've read and discussed. Though the oil embargo was more effective. What do you think caused white South Africans to turn the corner?

I think sanctions (and boycotts) can be useful in the short term, but they have diminishing returns over time and if near-permanent can become counterproductive (see, Cuba).

Obama upped the sanctions on Iran and now is harvesting the rewards from taking them off. This is good diplomacy, using them where they work but relying on other levers for permanent gains.

Yup. And on Cuba, sanctions policy was essentially useless and counterproductive for decades -- certainly since the fall of the USSR and probably before. Glad Obama had the balls to do what several other presidents should have done.

I think encouraging the growth of Iranian capitalism can be huge and deeply transformative for Iran. But by capitalism I don't mean oil trading; I mean the same sort of thing that is going on in India with the help of the Indian diaspora can go on in Iran with the help of the Iranian diaspora. Can't wait to do some Iranian deals. And I know some Iranians who can't wait either.

I hope you are right and I am wrong on this. I don't see the Ayatollahs loosening up. I also don't see any more Ahmedinejads being elected, the electorate generally shifting to more mainstream and rational candidates and that shift being helped by true capitalism -- BUT I fear the reaction to this will be more repression by the Ayatollahs.

Maybe they'll go for a variant on China's system -- open economy, closed (and much more religious) political system -- but I doubt it. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I agree that sanctions vs. Russia are not particularly meaningful.

Actually, my understanding is that they are hurting the Russian economy fairly severely. But they are still secondary to the hit it is taking from the oil slide - we have the benefit of getting to kick them when they're down. As they recover, they'll be able to develop alternative suppliers for most things (e.g., China).

My point was simply that the sanctions are about number five or six on the list of clusterfucks Putin has to deal with.

Disagree with respect to South Africa. It was the only real lever that we had, and it was effective from everything I've read and discussed. Though the oil embargo was more effective. What do you think caused white South Africans to turn the corner?

Here, again, I think sanctions had their impact, but the real victory goes to the ANC and Mandela, who got change by bringing pressure every way you can, from sanctions to terrorism, on the government.

I hope you are right and I am wrong on this. I don't see the Ayatollahs loosening up. I also don't see any more Ahmedinejads being elected, the electorate generally shifting to more mainstream and rational candidates and that shift being helped by true capitalism -- BUT I fear the reaction to this will be more repression by the Ayatollahs.

There is a large and overwhelmingly optimistic Iranian ex-pat community that seems pretty confident of this. That's my barometer. They know better than we do. One rather humorous metric -- the relief of the ban on women attending certain sporting events was just loosened, but if you look at pictures of Iranian sporting events, women have been showing up for a while.