Your analogy works to a point. The predators who are lurking around said metaphorical park at 2 AM waiting for said irresponsible hot chicks in mini-dresses will quickly realize that their prey has gone to somewhere safer, like a nightclub or bar where it is both appropriate and safe for metaphorical hot chicks in mini-dresses to be safely irresponsible (e.g. having fun). Then they will evolve their tactics to take advantage, like roofies or excessive plying of alcohol or flat-out assault. Your analogy ultimately fails because while there is something to be said for taking personal responsibility, the fact is that predators -adapt-, or they die. And since they don't want to die, they will adapt, they will continue to hunt, and they will infiltrate the "safe" places. It is ultimately not someone's fault that they are a victim if they honestly thought they were both safe and in a place/situation/enacting a policy that is supposed to be safe (and verified by independent experts to be safe).

Historically, that was only true in the 20th century. The only reason Japan survived as long as it did was due to two factors: 1) remarkably lucky bad weather drowning Kublai Khan's invasion fleet, and 2) A shogunate that decided to isolate itself from the world to avoid drawing further Chinese invasions plus focus on eliminating all foreign influences. China historically has had the manpower and the naval power to take on and defeat Japan. The 20th century was when that changed. Now Japan's got an aging society, a much smaller population, and they've got to compensate with nuclear weapons.

Which Chinese government? The KMT under Chiang Kai-Shek, or the CCP under Mao? The KMT was arguably far more corrupt than the CCP and deserved to be exiled to Taiwan. The KMT also did not control China, it only controlled a third-to-half of China. And if you argue that the KMT was the recognized government of China at the time, then you have to acknowledge that the KMT under CKS committed atrocities against the Communists (see the Long March) when it could have devoted those resources instead to driving the Japanese out of Manchuria. The CCP emerged from the Long March an ideologically pure, people-driven movement that did away with the crony-ridden corruption of the KMT and also countered the bellicose tyranny of Stalin. It wasn't until Mao succumbed to his own fear of becoming irrelevant and ordered the Great Leap Forward plus the Cultural Revolution that the CCP became as bad as the KMT.

TDLR: All sides committed atrocities in that period--the argument is over which flavor of nationalism can shout the loudest

A racketeer, banker, and all-in-all ruthless Wall Street tycoon--he was appointed by FDR to become chairman of the SEC because he was the biggest, baddest wolf of them all. And he did a complete 180--he knew all the tricks because he'd done them (or invented them) and he turned the SEC into a force to be reckoned with. Kennedy not only obeyed the rules, he enforced them and made Wall Street toe the line, which arguably helped us get out of the Depression the first time (before Congress, going populist and austeristic, decided to put us back into the Depression by cutting spending).

Good point--I'm assigning to culture traits and behaviors that don't necessarily correspond with ethnicity or age, but do correspond with socio-economic status. It's been my personal experience that all of the IT product managers I run into are white males in their forties/fifties. However, I can easily see young product managers of any ethnic background making the same decisions with the same reasoning. I will point out that in my experience and based on my observation of IT culture in Seattle that the vast majority of product managers are white middle-aged men. Being a product manager is a coveted position that draws primarily men with MBAs--and they do self-select for like-minded/appearing people. But to your point, it could very well be that the pressures and selective hiring practices for that position tend to favor business-oriented individuals who are somewhat ruthless and focused more on revenue generation than is good for everyone involved.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I deserved to be called out on that. I am sorry, I may very well have been unintentionally racist and more than a little wrong in how I positioned my statement.

Gotta second this--this reeks of a business plan by an ambitious white product manager in his late forties with an MBA who figured out how to juice more revenue out of his line, and got his management to sign off on it without considering the ramifications. I run into these guys all the time--it's amazing how many bad decisions in the IT sector come about because of guys like these. They know everything about their product, and yet at the same time know *nothing* because they're ultimately just businessmen peddling widgets, instead of geeks who care about the meta-level ramifications as well as the specifications AND the business.

But do you like the TDI and diesel performance?

Re-read everything you posted--look at the smugness, the satisfaction of being right that you convey. Then ask yourself why it is that despite all that evidence, you still face disagreement. It's not because those who disagree with you are stupid or evil, it's because the way you communicate indicates that you're a self-righteous tool. You and others like you always have to be right, no matter what. God help you if you're ever wrong about anything. You're damn right I got into a frothing, irrational rage over your words. People like you wreck the world for the rest of us because of your arrogant belief in scientism, and your self-righteous conviction that you're always right. Only you're either refusing to acknowledge that you posted with the intent to be seen as 'right', or you're truly oblivious to your own tone and actions. And now you hide behind a veneer of rationality and emotionless logic, expecting me to feel ashamed? No--if nothing else, you're going to remember this: the more you cling to being right, the more alone you will be.

And one more thing: if you think you're going to convince black Americans to go back to the fields, you got another thing coming. I can guarantee you that if we were to kick out all the illegal immigrants, it'd be white and Asian and hispanic kids in the fields. You'd never, EVER find black people out there--and there's no compelling argument short of turning America into a tyranny and returning them to slavery that will ever get them to go back.

Racist, maybe, but not bigoted. I do not believe I am superior to Mexicans--I know they're better suited than I am physically to harvest crops. I'm built for lifting heavy weights, retrieving things that are situated high up, and swinging claymores--asking me to go to the fields to pick fruit & veggies is asking me to wreck my back and my body in a very short time frame and becoming a liability to the community. I'm not saying that work is beneath me, I'm saying my personal body is not designed for that work--nor is my skin because I'm Scottish/German and being out in the sun all day will bring on skin cancer rapidly (I've already had it once and I'll deliver a polite "fuck you" to you if you think I'll go through that again). I'll gladly go cut trees, cut wheat, and slug it out with bears and other large predators on a hunt, though. I would agree with you about the false sense of entitlement that Americans have--most people I know with children would rather burn the entire town down than allow their children to do "demeaning" work like working the farms. There's nothing demeaning about it--but I will argue with you that like it or not, short Mexicans are better all around at picking fruit than tall gangly Anglos.

Ralph May had a good point in his comedy bit about mexican migrants, their physiological build, and how well suited they are for picking fruit. He also made a couple of good points about how machines aren't capable of picking fruit because there are a lot of intangible factors involved. So if we kick out the illegals, are we going to legalize child labor again and have them all out in the fields? How do you propose picking fruit with a workforce of teenagers or adults who are far larger than the average Mexican immigrant (and thus more subject to physical ailments and issues involving constantly kneeling or bending over more than 45 degrees)? This is a respectful question--I'd like to know how you'd solve that problem.

No, I'm not kidding. I'm not being sarcastic. Your tone of superiority, your shrieking alarm, your condescending disregard for the impact that the changes would have on ordinary people make me say "fuck you". Yes, the science is valid, and yes, this is happening. But if the cost of implementing such changes means that I have to put up with a lifetime of people like you, who smugly and with great self-righteousness, tell me that my entire life has to change drastically for the worse (when it's all I or anyone can do to merely stay afloat in this world with its myriads of issues and influences beyond our control), and that in order to assure that we as a species survive we must cede control over to people like you, then I'd rather die. Or adapt and live through the wars and whatever chaos comes. If you can't come to everyone in humility, understanding the challenges we face, and work together towards compromise, then you're not worth listening to.

As I said to ideonexus above: if people like you are right, then I'd rather let the planet burn. Fuck you and fuck your self-righteous, pompous, "I am right so obey me stance". I *know* the science is right, but I don't care because I don't want sanctimonious pricks like you, who condescend to me and people like me on a daily basis, to impose taxes and new paradigm shifts that are going to make my life even worse off for the sake of future generations--and here's the kicker--we don't even know if those changes WILL make future generations thank us. If you can't take the time to empathize and understand my position, and talk to me from a position of humility, then fuck your position. Let's jack up the CO2 and bring on the apocalypse. I'll adapt just fine, and I'll enjoy listening to you whine about the good ol' days. Or, we'll all be dead and it won't matter. Either way, people like YOU won't be in charge and I won't have to listen to blow-hards pontificating on the superiority of science telling me how I should live my life.

I don't care how right you are, it's your self-righteous and smug tone that inclines me to vote against you. Your science-only stance ignores the impact that the policies such science would propose has on my life. And it's aggravated by your "I'm holier than thou because I'm smarter than you, so do as I say" tone. And hundreds of millions of people agree with me. I'd rather let the planet burn than let you be right and let people like you tell me how to live my life. If you can't come down to my level with empathy and understanding, then to hell with you.

Thank you, sir :-)