Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby toucana on June 15th, 2018, 7:29 am 

I must admit that it's been a while since I read the bible on a daily basis, but my curiosity was piqued by the reported imbroglio between Sarah Sanders, this week's WH press spokesperson, and a number of reporters who took exception to the suggestion by AG Jeff Sessions that there is a solid biblical precedent for ripping babies from their mother's breast.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/sarah-huckabee-sanders-parent-children-separations-border-immigration/

It took me a little while, but I am pleased to report that I have finally found the relevant passage of holy scripture that Sessions must have been thinking of, so here it is:
7. Lacking clothes, they spend the night naked;
they have nothing to cover themselves in the cold.
8. They are drenched by mountain rains
and hug the rocks for lack of shelter.
9. The fatherless child is snatched from the breast;
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
10. Lacking clothes, they go about naked;
they carry the sheaves, but still go hungry.

Job Ch.24 vv 7-10 (NIV)
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby Watson on June 15th, 2018, 2:39 pm 

Good job. It should have been up to Jeff sessions to provide the references of his comments. If he had made such comments here, or other online forums, the rules if not courtesy would suggest comments be supported.

Even if such a comment does have a basis in truth, that hardly makes it relevant today. Nor does it make such actions right, now or then.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4605
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby toucana on June 15th, 2018, 6:57 pm 

Romans13_10.png

Jeff Sessions apparently cited Romans 13:1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

But as Steve Colbert noted, if Sessions had bothered to read another nine verses into the same chapter he would have found the verse highlighted above

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-colbert-schools-evil-jeff-sessions-on-the-bible-dont-bring-god-into-this?ref=home
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby Watson on June 15th, 2018, 7:37 pm 

Yes, I also saw Colbert after posting here. Good to have Stephen Colbert and staff on top of things. And with the audience, that the correction gets at least as much attention as the stupid comments.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4605
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby mitchellmckain on June 15th, 2018, 10:43 pm 

Since Job chapter 24 is a long list of the evil that men do, the only thing this passage in the Bible accomplishes is to add the Bible's condemnation of what is going on.

In fact, the overall impression I have from Job 24 is that the epitome of human evil is found in those who prey upon people who are desperate circumstances. Does doing this for advantages in politics and law enforcement make this any less evil? I don't think so. What we have here is the use of Nazi concentration camp like tactics in order to intimidate civilians just because they don't have any legal protection.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby toucana on June 16th, 2018, 8:17 pm 

An article published by the Washington Post earlier today discloses that Donald Trump’s policy of separating thousands of children from their parents at the border is part of a cynical negotiating strategy aimed at leveraging financial support within congress for his border wall project.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-as-a-negotiating-tool-his-policy-of-separating-immigrant-children-from-their-parents/2018/06/15/ade82b80-70b3-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5550239c840e

On Friday, Trump suggested he would not change the policy unless Democrats agreed to his other immigration demands, which include funding a border wall, tightening the rules for border enforcement and curbing legal entry.

“The president has told folks that in lieu of the laws being fixed, he wants to use the enforcement mechanisms that we have,” a White House official said. “The thinking in the building is to force people to the table.”

The president is feigning sorrow at the situation and blaming Democrats who have no majority in either house for the suffering that the current adminstration is causing.

In doing so Trump is taking a substantial political risk with his own support base. A wide coalition of US religious bodies and leaders including the US Catholic Conference of Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention have denounced the policy with outrage, and have also criticised other attempts by prominent political conservatives to justify it with specious biblical references.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/16/1772469/-Faith-leaders-are-not-on-board-with-Trump-policy-of-stealing-children-and-calling-it-biblical

Trump also risks alienating hard-line racists within his own cabinet like Stephen Miller who is said to be the principal architect of this ‘nuclear option’. The hard-liners are said to be annoyed at the possibility that implementation of their ideological approach will simply be discarded once the intended tactical political gains have been achieved.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-adviser-stephen-miller-pushed-for-border-separation-policy?ref=home
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby toucana on June 18th, 2018, 3:27 am 

Former first lady Laura Bush writing in the Washington Post this w/e:
I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.

Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history. We also know that this treatment inflicts trauma; interned Japanese have been two times as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease or die prematurely than those who were not interned

Americans pride ourselves on being a moral nation, on being the nation that sends humanitarian relief to places devastated by natural disasters or famine or war. We pride ourselves on believing that people should be seen for the content of their character, not the color of their skin. We pride ourselves on acceptance. If we are truly that country, then it is our obligation to reunite these detained children with their parents — and to stop separating parents and children in the first place.

People on all sides agree that our immigration system isn’t working, but the injustice of zero tolerance is not the answer. I moved away from Washington almost a decade ago, but I know there are good people at all levels of government who can do better to fix this.

Twenty-nine years ago my mother-in-law, Barbara Bush, visited Grandma’s House, a home for children with HIV/AIDS in Washington. Back then at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis, the disease was a death sentence and most babies born with it were considered “untouchables”. During her visit, Barbara - who was first lady at the time - picked up a fussy dying baby named Donovan and snuggled him against her shoulder to soothe him. My mother-in-law never viewed her embrace of that fragile child as courageous. She simply saw it as the right thing to do in a world that can be arbitrary, unkind, and even cruel. She who after the death of her 3-year-old daughter knew what it was to lose a child, believed that every child is deserving of human kindness, compassion and love.

In 2018, can we not as a nation find a kinder, more compassionate and more moral answer to this current crisis ? I, for one, believe we can.

User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby BadgerJelly on June 18th, 2018, 4:22 am 

Is there another angle to this?

Has anyone considered that these parents knew their children would be separated from them yet still risked this. If the parents were told to either go back or hand over their children would they hand their children over?

What is more, what happens to these are innocent so does the US government find them homes or are they merely brought up with no solid family foundation? If so why would their parents risk such an outcomed if they would are the parents naive, uneducated, or simply misinformed about policy?

Further more could such strict line prevent needless future suffering or cause more? Is such an action something to hamble with, can we really risk an immediate immoral and harsh treatment with the hope of a better future or should we always try to do teh immediate good without consideration of future ourcomes?

Let us not forget we’re talking about illegal immigrants. You don’t go to Saudi Arabia to get drunk and roam the streets shouting about how great Jesus is and how he was the son of god without repercussions - whether the law is right or wrong doesn’t matter, the responsibility lies in the risk parents.

If parents are willing to go to prison and be parted from their children becasue they believe this is the best choice for their children then that is their choice (right or wrong.)

I would blame the US government for extremely hostile relations with latin america for many decades. The solution would be to unite Mexico and the US to create a land border that is easier to control and monitor.

What are teh Mexican government doing to warn their citizens about losing their families? Genuinely I’d like to know - and that doesn’t mean I blame the Mexican government, only that I’d expect them to be concerned about such things happening to their citizens.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5278
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby toucana on June 18th, 2018, 5:28 am 

Asylum.jpg
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby Forest_Dump on June 18th, 2018, 7:17 am 

I find it odd that the settler mentality prefers to forget or ignore the fact that the First Nations people of the southern US and northern Mexico have been crossing that border to take advantage of economic opportunities for thousands of years. They were doing it before Trump's ancestors arrived here. They were doing it before any of the Republicans" ancestors were christianized. In fact they were crossing that"border" before anything in the Bible was even written. Why would or should they stop now?
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8768
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby BadgerJelly on June 18th, 2018, 10:10 am 

Forest_Dump » June 18th, 2018, 7:17 pm wrote:I find it odd that the settler mentality prefers to forget or ignore the fact that the First Nations people of the southern US and northern Mexico have been crossing that border to take advantage of economic opportunities for thousands of years. They were doing it before Trump's ancestors arrived here. They were doing it before any of the Republicans" ancestors were christianized. In fact they were crossing that"border" before anything in the Bible was even written. Why would or should they stop now?


International law?

I understand the law is a guideline, but just wandering into another country and expecting to be accepted is mindnumbingly naive.

The main issue is clearly the wealth disparity between the nations. People want in because the opportunities are better. The problem will remain one that can easily be solved if both the US and Mexico come to a common agreement. It doesn’t appear that they can and I don’t think it makes sense to pretend there is not a problem with people just wandering into the US without going through the correct procedures - it makes a mockery of those who’ve waited patiently to gain access legally doesn’t it?

I am by no means acting as an apologist here, but some perspective is needed from a counter position.

Toucan -

Just curious ... does illegally crossing the border mean you’re “applying for asylum”?

And no, I’m not too stupid to understand the dangers they may be running from. Either way they take the risk for themselves and their own children (because I imagine they expect they will go to prison but at least their children have a chance - if the danger is that strong.)

Some people have it hard, some people are dealt a bad hand in life. Should the US take in everyone or try and actually manage who they take in responsibly? If so if there is little control over who enters the country how can they be responsible? If other countries feel appalled maybe they should offer to send ships over and pick people up to relieve the burden?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5278
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby toucana on June 18th, 2018, 10:37 am 

Toucan -

Just curious ... does illegally crossing the border mean you’re “applying for asylum”?

No, crossing the border at a designated border post and asking for asylum means you are applying for asylum.

Is that too difficult for you to understand BadgerJelly ? Apparently it is for many Border Control staff, because they have been illegally arresting and separating young children from parents who did precisely what I have just described.

By and large, the Border Control staff don't seem to be the sharpest legal knives in the drawer, or maybe they are just racist Nazi thugs who feel empowered by the likes of Donald Trump and Stephen Miller being in charge of things.

As you seem to be too lazy to look it up yourself, here is the relevant legal reference:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby BadgerJelly on June 18th, 2018, 10:49 am 

Lazy, no? Simply asking questions and attempting to create a counter position. Which I believe is, as usual, too difficult for you to understand ;)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5278
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby Braininvat on June 18th, 2018, 11:44 am 

Moderator Hat briefly on:

Implying someone has "difficulty understanding" or is "lazy," however true it may feel, is an ad hominem. I was recently handed a complaint that ad hominems are not being properly enforced, or are differentially enforced, so I'm going to step in right now and request that all parties avoid them.

Mod Hat off (whew).

I think the key issue is how children, who are not able to make important life decisions or pre-natally select their parents, are treated. Given the reports we are getting from bipartisan groups going to these detention centers, which include that children are in considerale distress and yet rules forbid staff from holding them and comforting them, I think the only question is how we can stop this ASAP. The wealth disparity between nations, the intent of a border crosser, and the various legal fine points, can be worked out later. This is, first and foremost, a humanitarian crisis, and the USA has long pledged itself to principles of generously offering humanitarian assistance. Children should not be political pawns here.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6487
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby RJG on June 18th, 2018, 12:24 pm 

1. If it is the 'law' to separate children from their parents in these type of situations, then shouldn't we honor the law?

2. If it is okay to ignore this law (that we don't like), then does that mean that it is okay to ignore all the other laws that we don't like? ...who gets to pick which laws we can ignore and which we can honor?

3. We may not like the law, but we should honor it. If we don't like it, then we should work to change that law, ...right? Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?

We can't pick and choose which laws to obey (without consequences). The Democrats and Republicans need to stop playing politics, stop the blame game, and just get together and change the damn law. ...simple, right?
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby Braininvat on June 18th, 2018, 12:38 pm 

More questions for Political Theory, I would guess. Clearly, many current laws were the result of older laws being found deficient in some way and either modified or replaced. How best to change unjust laws or laws that cause unnecessary suffering is a vast question for PCF, to be sure.

The question here seems to be regarding a law that DOES, in fact, allow a path for refugees seeking asylum, and call for humanitarian treatment of same. So we are talking about an interpretation of that law that may actually be contrary to its intent and purpose, to secure the safety and wellbeing of refugees.

For that reason, some posters question if we should honor what appears to be a set of orders that are, in fact, in contradiction of our laws and foundational principles as a humanitarian society. (see my previous post, and earlier comments from Toucana, Laura Bush, and others). When we are talking about harm to children who (as I pointed out) cannot select their parents or circumstances, then it would seem of urgent and vital importance to ensure that the law works on their behalf and not to their detriment.

Perhaps a useful test of any government action might be, in this regard: would you approve of this action being done to your own children? It is possible for any person, I believe, to exercise their imagination and consider what it might be like to be refugee from a murdering government.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6487
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby SciameriKen on June 18th, 2018, 12:42 pm 

RJG » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:24 pm wrote:1. If it is the 'law' to separate children from their parents in these type of situations, then shouldn't we honor the law?

2. If it is okay to ignore this law (that we don't like), then does that mean that it is okay to ignore all the other laws that we don't like? ...who gets to pick which laws we can ignore and which we can honor?

3. We may not like the law, but we should honor it. If we don't like it, then we should work to change that law, ...right? Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?

We can't pick and choose which laws to obey (without consequences). The Democrats and Republicans need to stop playing politics, stop the blame game, and just get together and change the damn law. ...simple, right?


It is the executive branch's job to enforce to laws. Just because a law is on the books does not mean it needs to be enforced. We as the citizens can ignore laws at our own peril, maybe the executive branch is enforcing it, maybe not. I mostly agree with 3 though - we may not like a law and we should honor it, to the best of our ability - but more importantly, if we don't like it we should work to change the law. Breaking families apart - that has to go!
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby RJG on June 18th, 2018, 1:17 pm 

Brianinvat wrote:For that reason, some posters question if we should honor what appears to be a set of orders that are, in fact, in contradiction of our laws and foundational principles as a humanitarian society.

The key word here is "appears". What appears to be a 'correct' interpretation to one, may appear to be an 'incorrect' interpretation to another.

Unfortunately, we do not have the individual authority to claim which interpretation is the correct one. It is the job of (those involved) law officials to interpret and apply as they see it.

If the law is vague, or is being interpreted incorrectly, then we need our lawmakers (not us!) to correct this problem. Our job is to get the lawmakers to get to work and clarify these seemingly vague laws.


SciameriKen wrote:Breaking families apart - that has to go!

I think most agree. So then this should be an easy fix, ...right? Instead of the politicians pointing fingers at each other, why not just quickly change/clarify this bad law? ...easy, peasy, wouldn't you think?
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby BadgerJelly on June 18th, 2018, 1:19 pm 

This is the main issue. Families shouldn’t be broken up, but under some circumstances they will be broken up and the law will make it so for certain crimes.

The things that hurts with this is that these parents are desparate to find a better future for their children and willingly risk imprisonment AND losing their family. It’s a tragic thing no doubt!

Think of it like this perhaps. You know you’ll be killed along with your family if you don’t try. No brainer, you risk losing your family to save the lives of your children. An appalling situation to be in.

It makes no sense to split families up before deciding what legal action to take with the adults. That is clear enough for me. If these adults are dangerous then they should be arrested, and if there is nowhere for them in the US then back across the border they must go ... therein lies the problem. How do we assess the risk of putting people back where they came from? How much time would such an investiagtion take? How efficient can we hope to be?

Biv -

I don’t think looking at this as an immediate crisis will help without addressing the wider problem. It goes without saying that people don’t like what is going on, and I’ve heard from friends who’ve crossed the border there how differently they were treated once they flashed their welcome passport where others were forced to move right to the back after queues for god knows how long becasue they forgot to tick or cross this or that box on one of the many forms they had to fill in.

I read somewhere that the EU are funding the construction of a border wall in Turkey now.

There should be considerable pressure on both sides for the Mexican and US government to reach a humane solution. It’s never going to go away anytime soon, but a lot more could be done if governments cooperated ... we can dream?

I don’t expect much from the US government tbh. The solution to the problem is more likely to come from central american countries uniting than from any serious help from the US (although it saddens me to say so.) Public opinion in the US is too split to make a forceful demands of the government from what I can see, and this appears to be the case in most countries, and has always been the case ... now I’m sounding depressing! Haha!

The cry of women and children only reminds me of something Orwell wrote ... it’s dark stuff though.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5278
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby Braininvat on June 18th, 2018, 1:32 pm 

RJG » June 18th, 2018, 10:17 am wrote:
Brianinvat wrote:For that reason, some posters question if we should honor what appears to be a set of orders that are, in fact, in contradiction of our laws and foundational principles as a humanitarian society.

The key word here is "appears". What appears to be a 'correct' interpretation to one, may appear to be an 'incorrect' interpretation to another.

Unfortunately, we do not have the individual authority to claim which interpretation is the correct one. It is the job of (those involved) law officials to interpret and apply as they see it.

If the law is vague, or is being interpreted incorrectly, then we need our lawmakers (not us!) to correct this problem. Our job is to get the lawmakers to get to work and clarify these seemingly vague laws.




Most legal authorities who have been cited on this case, have said that the law clearly recognizes these refugee families as legitimate applicants for political asylum, and not as criminals. Here is the first paragraph of the law, which doesn't seem all that vague.....

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.


My guess would be that this is why bipartisan groups that have been visiting the detention camps has concluded that the separation procedure is not lawful. This includes GOP members of Congress and Laura Bush, a lifelong Republican. Given our system of democracy, it would then fall upon us to register protests of unlawful government orders, with that government, i.e. our duly elected representatives. Given that this is what is happening, I would say that your evident concerns about lawfulness are being addressed in the best way possible. Petitioning of our governing officials, and peaceful assembly for a redress of grievances, is at the heart of the first article of our constitution.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6487
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby RJG on June 18th, 2018, 2:19 pm 

Braininvat wrote:Given our system of democracy, it would then fall upon us to register protests of unlawful government orders, with that government, i.e. our duly elected representatives. Given that this is what is happening, I would say that your evident concerns about lawfulness are being addressed in the best way possible. Petitioning of our governing officials, and peaceful assembly for a redress of grievances, is at the heart of the first article of our constitution.

Yes, no disagreement here. We need to first ensure "lawful" actions are being carried out by our government.

But what if, after further review of these actions, we find out that these actions are in fact "lawful" (as I suspect they are), ...then what do we do?

A. Start pointing fingers and insult/blame each other? ...or
B. Demand our law officials to ignore or "close their eyes" to the law? ...or
C. Demand our lawmakers to "fix/correct" this law?
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby toucana on June 18th, 2018, 5:59 pm 

London_Cabmen.jpg
London Hansom Cab (Thompson & Smith 1877)

When the London Hackney Carriages Act was passed 1831, one of the provisions was that all hackney carriages operating within London should carry either a bale of straw or a bag of corn to ensure that the cab-driver could feed their horse at all times, especially during the heavy London fogs of that era.

http://www.southamptontaxis.org/blog/94/Do-taxi-drivers-need-to-carry-a-bale-of-hay-in-their-boot-by-law

This law wasn’t repealed until 1976, even though horse-drawn Hansom cabs faded into history after 1908 when ‘Taximeter Cars’ ( i.e petrol driven Taxis) came into use. The last known license for a horse-drawn cab in London was withdrawn in 1947.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansom_cab

According to a strict reading of this law, every London Taxi driver from 1908-1976 should have been prosecuted for failing to carry a bale of straw in the boot.

Fun Fact - The average speed of a horse-carriage in London in 1830 was 9mph. The average transit speed of a modern automobile in London traffic is still 9mph.

http://qi.com/infocloud/traffic-jams
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby BadgerJelly on June 18th, 2018, 11:42 pm 

Toucan -

I wonder if London would be a nicer palcemwith more horses? There have been some trends recently that make me think we’re going to adopt many old ways again.

Given that language and context change I wonder if we’re ever going to come up with a way to manage new laws and make amendments to old ones anymore “efficiently” than we already do.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5278
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby toucana on June 19th, 2018, 2:40 am 

This was the British poet Robert Graves (1895 - 1985) writing about his memories of Victorian London:
“.. (there were) no cars in those days. The streets cobbled and so filthy with horse-droppings and mud that everyone wore boots. Ragged boys with dirty faces used to sweep the crossings with brooms and beg for halfpennies. Sometimes they turned cartwheels to attract attention” - (My Best Christmas)

An article called ‘Early Traffic Problems” in the QI site went into more detail:
In the 1890s the key environmental concern was horse manure. London had 11,000 cabs and several thousand buses. Each used 12 horses per day, totalling more than 50,000 horses working in public transport alone. Each horse produces 15-35 pounds of manure per day; New York had 2.5 million pounds per day to shift.
 
‘Crossing sweepers’ were employed to clear paths through the dung, which was either sludge in wet weather or a fine powder which blew about in the dry. The piles of manure produced huge numbers of flies, which spread typhoid fever and other diseases; one estimate is that three billion flies hatched in horse manure per day in US cities in 1900, and in NY, 20,000 deaths per year were blamed on manure. 
 
In 1898 the first international urban planning conference convened in New York to discuss the issue. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution – but within a few years the problem had entirely disappeared. Electric trams and then cars and motor buses led to a rapid collapse in the horse population; in 1912, New York, London, and Paris traffic counts all showed more cars than horses for the first time, and most cities experienced their first motor traffic jams in 1914. 

http://qi.com/infocloud/traffic-jams

‘You pays yer money and you takes yer choice’ as they say. Which do you prefer - horse puckey, or petrol fumes and traffic jams ?
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: Today's Scripture Reading - Job 24:7

Postby Braininvat on June 19th, 2018, 11:12 am 

David Brooks, a conservative columnist, writes about the difference between traditional conservative values and Statism, in this piece on the family separation situation. If you read the quote, I would respectfully ask that you read the entire linked column before commenting. Law enforcement has a certain amount of discretion, in how it enforces certain laws - it's important to follow how this has changed in the last couple years.

This illustrates something crucial about this administration. It is not populated by conservatives. It is populated by anti-liberal trolls. There’s a difference.

People like Stephen Miller are not steeped in conservative thinking and do not operate with a conservative disposition. They were formed by their rebellion against the stifling conformity they found at liberal universities. Their primary orientation is not to conservative governance but to owning the libs. In power they take the worst excesses of statism and flip them for anti-liberal ends.

Here’s how you can detect the anti-liberal trolls in the immigration debate: Watch how they use the word “amnesty.” Immigration is a complex issue. Any serious reform has to grapple with tangled realities, and any real conservative has an appreciation for that complexity. But if you try to account for that complexity before an anti-immigration troll, he or she will shout one word: Amnesty!

Maybe we should find some arrangement for the Dreamers? Amnesty! The so-called moderate House immigration bill? Amnesty! Keeping families together? Amnesty!

This is what George Orwell noticed about the authoritarian brutalists: They don’t use words to illuminate the complexity of reality; they use words to eradicate the complexity of reality.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/opin ... ation.html
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6487
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills



Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 12 guests