Now we are in the midst of the times about which we were warned, and people like Leonard try to spin the calamity, the crisis, as being all to the good, in the long run.

These times are "crisis and calamity"? It's all very well and good to warn about possible hard times in the future, but you're claiming we're already there? Pardon me, but if this is the time of calamity, then I'll thank my lucky stars that we got off so easy.

Nor, for that matter, does it do squat to energize the deep structural critique of capitalism Leonard succests is as long overdue as it is difficult to make out on the landscape of the practical and possible.

What?

First, camilleRoy, that was a spectacularly gross mischaracterization of shannonr's post. Being callous to the entire rest of the world - as you seem to advocate - is a lot worse than the sin of suggesting that perhaps the rest of the world's poverty-stricken people deserve some small slice of global resources. By virtually any measure, the U.S. is hogging resources on a grand scale - even our poor.

Anonymous, thank you for clarifying.

CallMePatsy, I'm not convinced that replacing the Bush administration's fear mongering with your fear mongering is necessarily much of an improvement.

People are no longer happy like they were merely five years ago. The evidence is all around us.

Five years ago? 2001? In the throes of the internet bubble? Things were substantially worse then, even before 9/11.

Why aren't the rich paying more taxes...?

Because they are, unfortunately, running the country unchecked by dint of fear mongering - rather like yours, I'm afraid.

This all seems to assume that border control between the U.S. and Mexico is working as-is, but that would be news to me... If we opened the border, I honestly doubt we'd notice any significant difference in migration rates.

Frankly, I don't think "that's the way we live" is an excuse for such social isolation nor is it good for ourselves or our communities. With little effort, you can do a lot better than that. We just have to stop pretending that ignoring those around us is normal human behavior.

Not social isolation - social choice. In a small town community, it's normal for everyone to know everyone else. In a large city, it's quite literally impossible. Nevermind the internet...

So, that's why, or at least the start of why. The reason you cannot be friends with everyone is because you cannot be friends with everyone. There aren't enough hours in the day, brain cells in your head, or any other finite resource.

The question becomes, who are we to be friends (or even acquaintances) with? There are plenty of people I've never met whom I'm far closer to than most of my neighbors. (Some of my neighbors I am friends with.) Where do I choose to spend my time, my sympathy, my attention? Why should it be with someone I don't know who happens to live nearby, rather than with a dear friend who happens to be in another country?

There wouldn't even have to be a movie, the title alone could take first place this weekend.

The link from the main page was broken. I cracked up when I looked at it, though: it said "broodsheet". Perfect!

Any progress is better than no progress - which is the all-too-likely alternative. A debate between plans rather than a debate over whether there should even be such a plan is already a nice step.

Yeah, that's just what we need, more people who's identies can be easily assumed.

Drowning most of the world's ports is mild and benign? That's very interesting.

I find it fascinating how many people think that their free speech rights apply ANYWHERE, and that they can thereby force their hate-mongering into places that don't want it. It doesn't work that way. A University code can forbid speech regarding monkeys if it wants to. This sort of thing has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment.

I am very sick of activists who oppose any project that doesn't do everything that they want it to do. Don't they realize they're not mainstream? Don't they realize that what they want to happen, won't? And so all they're doing is opposing any steps in the right direction. Which side are they on?

What's the point of having more laws that we don't enforce? They're already illegal. So we want to make them "more" illegal? That's meaningless. We can't "more" deport the people we aren't rounding up in the first place. What does making the crime a felony do? Are we, instead of deporting, going to put them in jail? Into the already over-crowded prisons? That's no solution.

The laws currently on the books are more than enough to deal with the issue if they were enforced to a significant degree.

States' Rights has always been the cry of the party not in power, and which party spouts that line changes immediately and abruptly each time the electorate swings. (It can even be inconsistent from issue to issue.) It's a simple question of power: those in charge want to keep as much power as they can, and those not in charge want to scrape out as much power as they can from the edges. The principle of the matter is simply left as talking points in canned speeches which mean nothing.

This sounds like a great scam. Set up a corporation, guarantee a bunch of loans, use ALL the money to pay yourself and any clerks you employ, and if any of the loans default, just have the corporation declare bankruptcy. There's got to be a catch, here...