Morality in the NY Times (again)

The number one most emailed article at the NY times is The Moral Instinct, written by Steven Pinker, which is based on research by Jonathan Haidt.

Mr. Haidt’s hypothesis is that there are five dimensions of morality: harm (don’t harm others), fairness, loyalty to one’s group, respect for authority, and purity. Furthermore, his theory is that liberals only understand harm and fairness, while conservatives value all dimensions of morality. You can read a more detailed academic article if you are curious.

I wish Haidt had broken down fairness into distributive fairness and procedural fairness. It has always been my contention that the liberal is obsessed with distributive fairness, or righting inequalities. Harm is related to distributive fairness, because harming someone else is the ultimate distributive unfairness.

I previously wrote that “leftists are hostile to nationalism, which is another way of saying that they are unpatriotic to whatever country they live in.” Haidt agrees, he says that the liberal does not value loyalty to the group (one’s country being an important group) the way conservatives do. I previously discovered, in the General Social Survey, that Republicans love America more than Democrats.

The NY Times, like my blog, repeats stories, because I previously blogged about a NY Times article about Jonathan Haidt’s research.

There is also a website where you can take a test to see how you fall in this spectrum. I discovered that I scored very low on the “harm” value. Which means I take a utilitarian approach to harming others. For example, if dropping bombs on Iran benefits the United States, then I’m in favor of it. The liberal, who opposes harming others, and is not patriotic to the U.S., would prefer to not bomb Iran, even if abstaining from such bombing hurts the U.S. But the liberal will refuse to admit that his favored policy harms the U.S.

CLARIFICATION

I believe it's wrong to bomb Iran just because it benefits the United States a little. The harm done to Iranians would have to be heavily outweighed by the harm prevented to others. But a nuclear Iran is capable of causing massive harm to others, and to prevent that from happening, the infliction of some present harm is more than justified.

Comments

[hugh go naught]

Then I guess we are fortunate, Dr. Strangelove, that you aren't in a position to push the button just because non-Jews who live in the Middle East scare you.

[nobody]

Why is HS posting stuff like this again? Doesn't he get that it is not in his best interest regardless if it is true or not?

In 2006, he stated that Jews tend to vote for democrats.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/11/why_do_jews_vot.html

Using HS's research that shows Jews have a tendency to vote for democrats. Democrats are considered "liberals" in this country. Liberals don't love America. The conclusion is something that gets ADL worked up in no time. Heck, people can get labeled as a anti-semitic for much less. Just see the last few days of posting right here in this blog.

[SFG]

It's weird. I have a very high score on harm (even more for than usual for a liberal), about average for a liberal on fairness, slightly below average for a liberal on loyalty, closer to a conservative for authority (elitism?), and typical liberal for purity.

So maybe I'm just a craven bootlicker. I'm actually surprised, I've always resented authority.

[SFG]

HS, what are the rest of your scores? I wish more libertarians would take this test...

[pjgoober]

hugh go naught, you must have missed the word "if" in "if dropping bombs on Iran benefits the United States". You do realize that that is not the same thing as saying "Dropping bombs on Iran would benefit the United States", right?

[tommy]

Harm

Tommy: 3.0
Conservatives: 3.2
Liberals: 3.8

Fairness

Tommy: 2.8
Conservatives: 3.0
Liberals: 3.8

Loyalty

Tommy: 3.4
Conservatives: 2.9
Liberals: 2.0

Authority

Tommy: 3.6
Conservatives: 3.3
Liberals: 2.2

Purity

Tommy: 3.4
Conservatives: 2.9
Liberals: 1.6

[PA]

In other words, Liberals are moral retards.

And I mean 'retards' in the strict sense: their sense of morality had frozen in development on a child's level: it's sentimentality with a strong dose of vanity.

[SFG]

Hmmm....interesting! Tommy is more-conservative-than-conservative. The high scores on loyalty and purity make sense for a paleocon.

Harm: 4.5
Fairness: 3.8
Loyalty: 1.9
Authority: 3.0
Purity: 1.6

And I mean 'retards' in the strict sense: their sense of morality had frozen in development on a child's level: it's sentimentality with a strong dose of vanity.
In a sense you're right that we lost three fifths of our moral code. I'd be more interested in giving the test to kids and seeing how they do; I suspect a lot of girls in particular would have high purity scores. ('Eeewww, gross!')
A lot of it has to do with the anti-authority revolt of the sixties. The main reason I'm not a conservative, at least on the conscious level, is my strong anti-business leanings. I don't trust those guys and I think we need the govt. to keep them in line. And I feel bad for poor people (high harm score?). The high authority score is what makes no sense to me.

I'd be really interested to see some libertarians take it; would they be conservative on one set and liberal on others?

[Peter]

Then I guess we are fortunate, Dr. Strangelove, that you aren't in a position to push the button just because non-Jews who live in the Middle East scare you.

Haven't you heard? Someday soon the Towel Heads are going to Conquer the World and haul us off to the ovens! It'll be a tossup as to what our last sensory impression will be: the sound of the Koran verses blaring from loudspeakers all over America (or what used to be America), or the smell of the Zykon-B.

The psychiatric community has come up with terms describing all sorts of mental conditions. They really need to come up with a new term, to describe a condition that affects quite a few Americans - say, about 99% of the population - whose main symptom can be described as "living in mortal dread of the most comically disorganized and militarily inept people in the world."

[PA]

A lot of it has to do with the anti-authority revolt of the sixties.

I think that in a lot of ways, the anti-authority revolt of the sixties was more about abolishing one type of authority by another. The "hippies" or whoever didn't necessarily think of it that way, but a sense that the world has to be re-arranged ("change the world") under some kind of an implied authority had to have been an element somewhere in their psyche.

On the other hand, Lawrence Auster recently mused that liberalisms consists of two parts, which are sometimes at war with each other: the rationalistic, aimed at re-engineering society, and the romantic, aimed at some collective experience of liberation or human oneness. (See Hillary v. Obama)

The main reason I'm not a conservative, at least on the conscious level, is my strong anti-business leanings.

I think a common miscoception about conservatism is that laissez faire economics is its dominant principle. That's probably what turns off many people. But true conservatism subordinates commerce to the well-being of the overall society. Pat Buchannan, for example, has always been principled in promoting the needs of society over the needs of corporations (the two aren't always alligned.)

[Half Sigma]

"Someday soon the Towel Heads are going to Conquer the World and haul us off to the ovens!"

Meant to be sarcastic, but I have no doubt that elements in Muslim countries would commit a second Holocaust by killing all the Jews in Israel if they could.

Given the demonstrated Islamic propensity to engage in suicide bombing attacks against civilians in Western countries, it seems suicidal to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.

[Peter]

Meant to be sarcastic, but I have no doubt that elements in Muslim countries would commit a second Holocaust by killing all the Jews in Israel if they could.

And I'd run out today and buy a new Lamborghini if I could. Those three words make all the difference in the world.

[John]

Humanist are not neutral as opposed to religion. I'm struck by the hypocrisy. The agnostic or supposed morally neutral blame religion for imposing itself in celebration of its "moral instinct." But what about non-religious ideas and the countless millions that they have killed? For example, the idea that a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body has resulted in the killing of how many individual human lives? Yet, when a religious framework is used to confront this idea--religion is accused of all this destruction in the world. I'm sick and tired of this hypocrisy. Or, maybe that's just my moral instinct kicking in.

[SFG]

I don't think Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I doubt they'd nuke the US; the leadership wants to stay alive. Given how many Iraqis the US killed after a different group of Muslims killed 3000 Americans, you can imagine what would happen if a nuclear bomb exploded in Manhattan.

Peter: if 99% of society believes it, it's not abnormal. Anti-semitism was not a mental illness in Nazi Germany. You could argue the whole society was sick, I guess.

On the other hand, Lawrence Auster recently mused that liberalisms consists of two parts, which are sometimes at war with each other: the rationalistic, aimed at re-engineering society, and the romantic, aimed at some collective experience of liberation or human oneness. (See Hillary v. Obama)
Yes! But it's not just that; I doubt union guys in Chicago are very rationalistic or romantic, just voting their interests. In terms of ideology, you're spot-on. I think on the right the tension is between libertarian, rationalistic free-marketeers and traditionalist, conservative (in the nonpolitical sense) religious people. Let's say HS vs. Pat Buchanan.

I think a common miscoception about conservatism is that laissez faire economics is its dominant principle. That's probably what turns off many people. But true conservatism subordinates commerce to the well-being of the overall society. Pat Buchannan, for example, has always been principled in promoting the needs of society over the needs of corporations (the two aren't always alligned.)
Right, but the other half of conservatism, which I do have some sympathy for--even if I don't want to live in a Christian theocracy, I can understand Christians who want to keep sex and violence away from their kids--I don't want to live under. I mean, I'm an overintellectual partly-Jewish unathletic guy. There's no place for me in the South. I could kind of see myself as a gun nut with a big collection of conspiracy theories, but those guys'd shoot me if I tried to come to their meetings, probably seeing me as the advance guard of ZOG or whatever. I could convert to Christianity (it would be nice if Jesus loved me even if nobody else does, and I'm not being sarcastic), but the Nazi influence means my impure blood makes me nonwhite (though I always thought of myself as white growing up, and on the streets of NYC had good reason to fear non-Asian minorities). It's not a bad philosophy from your point of view (though I do think a retreat from science is bad for a country in the long run), but there's nothing for me, personally, there. Look at Larry Auster, he's one of the best paleocon writers I've seen and they all give him shit for being Jewish. But I wouldn't oppose a partial Southern secession. Have two countries with one army or something (to prevent foreign powers playing one country off against the other) but two presidents and two sets of laws, etc.

Groan. We have so many political discussions about the Middle East, can't someone at least post their morality test scores? I want to see how libertarians score!

[Vim]

I second John strongly on his point.

There are lots of essentially atheist doctrines that have resulted in mass murder, communism under Stalin for instance. But there are lots of people who as a consequence of their atheism perform antisocial acts including murder, arguing that life is meaningless anyway.

"And I mean 'retards' in the strict sense: their sense of morality had frozen in development on a child's level: it's sentimentality with a strong dose of vanity."

Lots of conservatives are sentimental. I have observed lots of crying over god and country. Anyway, this criticism has a very male bias ie. : anger is not an emotion. Anger is not only an emotion but one that younger children have in abundance (terrible twos etc). Conservatives are full of anger. Listen to talk radio. Read the blogs.

Claiming your country is the greatest in the world is not vanity? Usually the morals that conservatives advocate are usually things they claim to have, so it's usually a form of self praise. GWB is perceived as arrogant and he doesn't care. Clinton was perceived as humble and he did care about adjusting his behavior to respect the customs of others.

I am not going to fall into the trap of saying liberals or better or worse. They aren't. All in all, I really don't follow this critique of liberals. It's basically wrong.

[SFG]

Hey Vim, what's your score on the test? I'd be curious to see PA's too to see if this more-con-than-the-cons thing is a natural property of paleoconservatism.

[PA]

There's no place for me in the South

And there is no place for a Redneck in Hassidic Brooklyn.

Traditionalist conservatism recognizes that distinct cultures are like unique ecosystems that allow people to live, work, play, worship, and raise kids how they want to. Cultural consensus is an important part of liberty.

Modern Liberalism (and neocon "Conservatism") destroys that very basis of liberty, either by being ideologically hostile to it (Liberals) or malevolently indifferent to it (Neo-cons).

[Nancy Lebovitz]

Liberals have purity standards. Remember that discussion about dropping friends who believe there's a connection between race and intelligence?

[PA]

Peter goes on about how Muslims ar no threat to anyone.

He ignores many previous comments to the effect that wherever they settle in the West, thet outbreed the native population, and first take over its streets, and then the courts. See the Steyn Persecution in Canaca.

In his own smarmy way, though, he's right. A million wombs stand no chance against one Abrams tank. But in the modern world, Islam is like an opportunistic Pneumonia that takes over a patient weakened by AIDS (Liberalism being the HIV in this analogy.)

Without Liberals, Muslims would indeed be "the most comically disorganized and militarily inept people in the world."

[john]

This is a good idea, "love your neighbor as yourself." It was spoken by an authority on the subject of morality. He did not pontificate or speculate on ultimate reality. He claimed to be it. His testimony--being truly holy having a perfect manifestation of justice and love. He came to convict the world of its inability and in some cases refusal to seek the highest good. Yet, instead of sending down brimestone, he sacrificed himself. Now, forgiveness can be justified. Not on a good idea--but on a real event. If this is just myth or good story-telling, then the disciples must have had a keen grasp of the questions in this article. It awesome to see how good science and good Christocentric faith compliment each other--even after 2000 years.

[roissy]

i consider myself a hedonist capitalist with leanings toward some paleocon viewpoints.

harm: 2.4
fairness: 2.8
loyalty: 2.4
authority: 2.0
purity: 0.8

more con than lib in harm and fairness, though i score lower than both in every category except loyalty (more loyal than the libs, less than cons), which i guess makes me one nihilistic amoral prick.

[PA]

Roissy, you're amoral or nihilistic because you're not invested in anything; you're skimming the abundant fruit of our society. You're one of my favorite online personalities, so I'm not saying this disparagingly.

But if you had a couple of little Roissies, you'd "pick a side" quickly, I think.

[Vim]

Harm: 3.9
Fairness: 3.9
Loyalty : 2.0
Authority: 2.1
Purity: 2.1

I do care a lot about reducing harm and maintaining fairness. For instance, a stupid belief about race that is prosocial, I don't care about at all. A stupid belief about race that is antisocial, I care about quite a bit.

In general, I consider nationalism a trait that is suited to children. Any person of average intelligence should be able to see that nationalism is logically inconsistent and arbitrary.

[Peter]

Peter goes on about how Muslims ar no threat to anyone.
He ignores many previous comments to the effect that wherever they settle in the West, thet outbreed the native population, and first take over its streets, and then the courts.

Yes, like they've demographically taken over Eurabia, formerly known as Europe ... oh wait, Muslims account for a grand (drumroll please) three percent of the European Union's population.* That's less than one-quarter of the percentage of blacks in America, and no one talks about a black demographic takeover of America. Doesn't sound like much of a "takeover" to me.

* = not to mention the fact that many of them are secularized Muslims in name only

[hugh go naught]

Harm: 2.9
Fairness: 2.6
Loyalty: 1.9
Authority: 1.6
Purity: 1.1

[David Alexander]

My results:

Harm
DA: 3.1
Conservatives: 3.2
Liberals: 3.8

Fairness
DA: 3.4
Conservatives: 3.0
Liberals: 3.8

Loyalty
DA: 2.4
Conservatives: 2.9
Liberals: 2.0

Authority
DA: 2.8
Conservatives: 3.3
Liberals: 2.2

Purity
DA: 2.1
Conservatives: 2.9
Liberals: 1.6

Interpret as you see fit...

[tommy]

In general, I consider nationalism a trait that is suited to children. Any person of average intelligence should be able to see that nationalism is logically inconsistent and arbitrary.

Not all arbitrary distinctions are useless (as drawing distinctions between races demonstrates) and I certainly prefer nations - with a preference for small nations over larger ones - over the alternative of a borderless world where no common culture could be maintained for long. Perhaps you consider an incoherent, multilingual, massively stratified America whose residents feel little loyalty to a common social or political life or to their fellow citizens to be the only adult alternative. If that's the case, then I'll happily maintain my childish nationalism in opposition to the mature choice of making America into a piece of Third World real estate.

[tommy]

David Alexander is a moderate in everything except harm. Very interesting.

[SFG]

I'm not surprised Roissy has a low purity score; a lot of it has to do with sexual abstention, and if his blog is any indication, the boy likes to fuck.

I'm not against nationalism. Tommy and PA: do you think the US would be better off as two nations, a Red and a Blue? We could still pool our resources for stuff like defense.

Makes sense DA would be anti-harm. I think people who think they've gotten the raw end of the deal tend to be more sympathetic to the downtrodden.

Vim's a lefty. No surprises there.

Hugh go naught, are you a libertarian? I'm still dying to see how some of the libertarians here score.

[hugh go naught]

SFG,

Yes. I come here for comic relief.

[PA]

do you think the US would be better off as two nations, a Red and a Blue? We could still pool our resources for stuff like defense.

According to the Constitution, we should be fifty distinct "nations" that pool resources together for things like defense.

I like the idea of there being an Leftie San Francisco, a Redneck Alabama, a Welfare Massachussets, an Evangelical Kansas, a Green Washington State, and so on.

[Vim]

tommy:

Nationalism strikes upon four truths (as I see it):

1. That the state is the most effective form of governance known.

2. That the state should be representative of the people governed

3. That the state should be accountable to the people governed.

4. That the people governed must be accountable to the state.

Nationalism is childish because it is based on the same instinct that causes a child to cling to its mother. This doesn't make it a thoroughly useless emotion. In fact the emotion that bonds a child to its mother is not a thoroughly useless emotion. But it is nevertheless, something suited to children.

As I said, I think anybody of average intelligence has grokked that it's abitrary as have you. That does not mean they bother to overcome it.

"Perhaps you consider an incoherent, multilingual, massively stratified America whose residents feel little loyalty to a common social or political life or to their fellow citizens to be the only adult alternative."

I feel common cause with people with similar ideals. I think this is the same with Americans: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

Nothing in there about being excluded if you are born in Mexico.

[SFG]

Nationalism isn't obsolete because it still exists.

In other words, we have to be nationalistic because there are other nation-states out there, and their leaders and people may wish us harm. In a perfect world, we would not need nations and all adults would have uncoerced transactions, but one of the best ways to get territory remains to band lots of men with weapons together and take it by force. Prisoner's dilemma etc. Same reason we need a military. I'd love to disband the army and send all the soldiers home to watch NASCAR and their girlfriends, but we need men with guns protecting us from other nations' men with guns.

PA: Yeah, though I think six or seven Americas would be good. There's no reason New England couldn't be a country with its capital in Boston, and NYC ought to be a city-state, perhaps including its suburbs. California certainly would make a good country, and I think Oregon and Washington would do well together. I think Southerners might like to have their own country, with a capital in Atlanta. The thing is we'd lose many of the trade advantages of being a superpower, and some states have all the money and other states have all the soldiers. You can see where this is going. Though I guess as a Southerner you might relish the thought of laying waste to Times Square and looting Saks Fifth Avenue to bring something home to your wife.

[SFG]

Hugh: interesting! you're below average on all scores! And HS has told us he is below average on harm, perhaps explaining his antipathy toward liberals. Maybe libertarians are low on both liberal and conservative axes and thus feel uncomfortable moralizing against others. I personally would expect libertarians to have low harm scores and low authority scores. HS, care to post?

SFG,
Here is a link for you. The book is "Civil War 2 The Coming Break-Up of America" by Thomas Chittum. Long, but quite an interesting read.

http://www.timebomb2000.com/misc/CWII.pdf

[PA]

PA: Though I guess as a Southerner you might relish the thought of laying waste to Times Square and looting Saks Fifth Avenue to bring something home to your wife.

I'm a Southerner? What's my screen name again? :-)

Actually, I am an Eastern European immigrant who came to the US during the early 80s from a Commie country, and never gasve up the idea that America is the greatest friggin' country in the world.

Having served in the US Army during my early 20s, I've come to believe that Rednecks are the best friggin' people in the world. Must be somethign about the generous-hearted but always ready to fight for what's right Scotch-Irish blood that's in sinc with my Slavic ways.

In any case, I've always liked the richness of cultures and traditions in America (which includes Gay San Fran) and I hate seeing it all threatened.

[tommy]

SFG,

I'm not against nationalism. Tommy and PA: do you think the US would be better off as two nations, a Red and a Blue? We could still pool our resources for stuff like defense.

Actually, I prefer my countries about the size and population of Switzerland or Austria. I favor the idea of pooling defense resources, obviously. I think a state of five or ten million people is likely to do a better job reflecting the collective will of its population than a nation of 300,000,000.

Vim,

1. That the state is the most effective form of governance known.

Exactly. As bad as the U.S. government is, it is still infinitely favorably than direct government by dubious, unaccountable international bodies like the United Nations.

In fact the emotion that bonds a child to its mother is not a thoroughly useless emotion. But it is nevertheless, something suited to children.

Yes, we need security as children and we also need security as adults. You might as well argue that the need for law enforcement is childish by that reasoning. We still need it.

Nothing in there about being excluded if you are born in Mexico.

If the Mexicans want it (which they probably don't) and are capable of enacting it (which they may not be able to), then let them try in Mexico. I think most Mexican citizens, including Mexican illegals, care more about their own culture than about this country's founding principles.

[Vim]

tommy:

Are you sure you are responding to me? I do not believe that you grasped a single point that I made.

SFG,tommy:

"We could still pool our resources for stuff like defense."

The idea that two seperate countries would 'pool' resources for defense is ridiculous. The US already tried this anyway. It's called the 'Articles of Confederation' and it didn't work.

[tommy]

Are you sure you are responding to me? I do not believe that you grasped a single point that I made.

Then, by all means, make a point. I see you essentially making my case for me by pointing out the myriad advantages of the state (and offering no alternatives) but then dismissing support for the concept as a "childish" emotion without any real explanation.

The idea that two seperate countries would 'pool' resources for defense is ridiculous. The US already tried this anyway. It's called the 'Articles of Confederation' and it didn't work.

The Articles of Confederation didn't work because the Confederacy was defeated by the Union. That had little to do with the Confederacy's pooling of military resources; it had a great deal to do with the South's inferior economic position.

[tommy]

The idea that two seperate countries would 'pool' resources for defense is ridiculous.

You're right. There was this crazy idea that people once had to pool military resources...

...they called it the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Unlike the oh-so-successful United Nations, it was a complete and total failure.

[David Alexander]

The Articles of Confederation didn't work because the Confederacy was defeated by the Union. That had little to do with the Confederacy's pooling of military resources; it had a great deal to do with the South's inferior economic position.

I think you're conflating the post-revolutionary Articles of Confederation government with the Confederate States of America. The argument that we're focusing on revolves around the question of how devolved should American government become? Should we return back to the days of strong state rights or simply turn into a de facto monetary and military union?

Unlike the oh-so-successful United Nations, it was a complete and total failure.

The UN by it's current design can't work unless there's mutual agreement amongst the five permanent members which is rare. As much as we say that the UN is an ineffective body, one can argue that it may be better to have an ineffective supranational body given the lack of democracy and transparency in that body.

Actually, I am an Eastern European immigrant who came to the US during the early 80s from a Commie country, and never gasve up the idea that America is the greatest friggin' country in the world.

Many of the Eastern Europeans that I meet are very enamored of the United States, particularly more so than most immigrants. The Russians that I've met have particularly no love for their homeland and no desire to return and visit. In contrast, I rarely see similar sentiments from fellow Caribbeans or Southeast Asians.

[Vim]

tommy:

I assume you are American ... maybe you should read up on your first constitution ie. the articles of confederation. It has nothing to do with the American civil war. (I will resist saying anything snide).

"You're right."

Yes I know. Any kind of supranational body needs the right to demand funds and draft an army when it comes to military issues. If it's voluntary, and dependent on the component members, it won't work.

[Vim]

I think one can't rate the whole UN monolithicly. The WHO for example is amazing and we can thank if for ending small pox and rolling back polio to just a few countries. We can also thank it for keeping track of bird flu and all sorts of diseases that easily cross borders.

[tommy]

I think you're conflating the post-revolutionary Articles of Confederation government with the Confederate States of America. The argument that we're focusing on revolves around the question of how devolved should American government become? Should we return back to the days of strong state rights or simply turn into a de facto monetary and military union?

Sorry, my bad. I'm thinking of the Confederate Constitution. I don't know what the Articles of Confederation have to do with anything. The Articles of Confederation penned in the wake of the Revolutionary War differed little from the U.S. Constitution on the matter of armies or declaring war: only the central government was allowed a true standing army and only Congress could declare war. That's all there in the current Constitution. People forget that the U.S. did effectively pool its military resources under the Constitution when most people in the United States still thought of themselves as Georgians or Virginians or New Yorkers and so forth rather than as Americans.

[tommy]

I think one can't rate the whole UN monolithicly. The WHO for example is amazing and we can thank if for ending small pox and rolling back polio to just a few countries. We can also thank it for keeping track of bird flu and all sorts of diseases that easily cross borders.

Why couldn't these efforts have been done by a coalition of countries acting in concert with one another for the specific purpose of eradicating polio or smallpox? Why was the superstructure of the United Nations needed to achieve these goals? Smallpox, for example, had mostly been eliminated in the Western hemisphere by more limited bodies before WHO ever got into the act.

[PA]

Many of the Eastern Europeans that I meet are very enamored of the United States, particularly more so than most immigrants.

This was especially the case with EE's who came here during the 80s. Much less so today, with, say, Eastern European work-travel students and visa overstayers, who tend to see America from its worst side. Work-study arangements can be an especially nasty experience.

I think during the 80s, EE immigrants were really taken in with the free country thing (It's easy to forget how unfree things were behind the Iron Curtain; even I fall into nostalgia for my childhood in that time and place.)

Today, though, Eastrn Europeans tend to be more cynical about their stay in the US, particularly if things don't work out well for them here. Especially since today, working in the US really sucks with the curency conversions. England is much better for those with purely economic motives.

The Russians that I've met have particularly no love for their homeland and no desire to return and visit.

I've definitely noticed this with Russians and Ukrainians. Much less so with EE's from the smaller nations, who, like me, are very fond of their native countries and visit them frequently.

[pjgoober]

Hey Vim, here's the Preamble to the Constitution to contest your interpretation of the Declaration of Independence line:
"...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice it says "ourselves and our posterity" line, as opposed to "ourselves and everyone on earth". Hat-tip:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/our_posterity.htm

[pjgoober]

Hey Vim, here's the Preamble to the Constitution to contest your interpretation of the Declaration of Independence line:
"...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice it says "ourselves and our posterity" line, as opposed to "ourselves and everyone on earth". Hat-tip:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/our_posterity.htm

[Bill Ganzel]

Fascinating article and replies. For what it's worth, there is a free, non-profit educational web site that has several full interviews with Dr. Norman Borlaug -- who is featured in the original article -- about his work in agriculture. Go to http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org and click on the "Media Resouces" for video podcasts of his interviews. Or go to the "Farming in the 50s-60s" section and click on the "Crops" subsection to see longer articles about the history and debate about the Green Revolution. Again, it's totally free and non-profit.

Having served in the US Army during my early 20s, I've come to believe that Rednecks are the best friggin' people in the world.

They are the best soldiers we have and I can speak from personal experience. Just outstanding with a rifle and I'm not talking about the snipers either. Rednecks come to the military "pre-loaded" with the software that makes them so effective.

[SFG]

Makes sense. They go camping so are used to roughing it and shoot guns all the time.

I'm not so much anti-redneck as I am afraid of living around them. They got their part of the country, I got mine.