Why are People Fleeing Their Homelands?

Are migrants settling in Europe and America to flee their homelands due to unfair persecution and terrorism?


Are migrants settling in Europe and America as a way to colonize a new land for their people and their ways?

Is diversity a strength?

Is there such a thing as too much diversity?

Does diversity equate to division?

Who is not considered to be contributing to diversity?

Do optics dictate diversity?

What does diversity mean?

What does free mean?


87 thoughts on “Why are People Fleeing Their Homelands?

  1. 🙂 Hmm. Those are all good questions.

    In some instances, people are fleeing from persecution.

    Also, American is known as, “The land of opportunities.”

    I will leave the other questions on your list for someone else to answer.

    Do enjoy the rest of your day, Bottomless Coffee 007.

        1. Lots of good questions. I think some people are fleeing from truly horrible situations, some people are looking for “the dream” , some people are moving because, like all migratory animals, they’re moving on to richer feeding grounds.

          Diversity can be broken down so many ways, that’s a difficult one to answer.
          In general, I believe diversity brings new ideas, which is good, prevents stagnation. But then new ideas are scary to a lot of people so out of fear is born distrust and dislike, then hatred.

          These are complex issues and there’s no one-size-fits-all answers.

          What are your thoughts?

          1. bottomlesscoffee007

            I think we are in a battle of ideologies. I think we make proclamations assuming that we speak for the masses. I think the sooner we realize that the idea of what America is, what America was and what America should be is incredibly subjective and no where near concrete, the sooner we will understand that America means different things to different people.

            The more ideological we remain, the more ideological our opponents will remain as well.

  2. I feel like your questions are mostly rhetorical.

    Are there people who escape for the right reasons? Probably. But my question is: “Why aren’t they settling in the next peaceful place instead of travelling to a far, far, far away land?”
    Some people think of the Western countries as places with opportunities. Maybe. But I feel like that was more the case a couple of decades ago than it is today. I’ll risk it and say that if I wasn’t me (different character and background), I might travel to those countries and cry oppression just to get special treatment. It does seem to work for some.

    The places where diversity is very important are becoming the least diverse (opposite of the spectrum).

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      I wanted to hear what people had to say. Sometimes I wonder if I take America for granted. People do come here for opportunities, at the same time, I do tend to think that the colonization of the Americas is far from over.

      I wasn’t trying to be rhetorical, more or less I wanted to hear what people truly thought.

      I watched the debates last night and it cemented an idea I’ve had for awhile.

      People are subjective about what America is and what it should be. American values are not concrete, in my opinion. Yet we constantly find ourselves in an ideological fight, trying to defeat the other side that we feel does not exhibit the same values that we hold dear.

      What is America may vary depending on whom you ask. Is there a single reason why people come here? Are we losing the America that we knew?

      If you don’t agree with the direction we are headed, who’s fault is it really?

      We are constantly attempting to legislate the opposing side.

      We are all ideological, yet we always assume it’s the other side that has it wrong.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Free stuff, on demand abortions, open borders, trump is da debil, and apparently anything that doesn’t align with the dems is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and xenophobic.

          Renew the Iran deal, continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Climate change requires radical change.

          Oh, and trump is da debil.

          Honestly Goldie, nothing new. I think Tulsi Gabbard would be a solid addition to any presidential staff, I don’t agree with her, but I do think she is the most balanced out of all of them.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      The more I ponder my 2020 vote, the more it seems that it will be a vote for or against abortion, regardless of my personal gripes.

      1. Really ? I don’t see the abortion option ever being completely taken away, unfortunately. I’m more worried about the loss of our basic rights , speech , press, capitalism, guns, parental, personal .

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          I think eventually we will have to decide what is worth losing to outlaw abortion.

          I am worried about our basic rights as well, I have written before about my reservations with trump and his appetite for gun control.

          1. We do not own guns and never have, although we are seriously considering it, for the first time ever. The idea of gun control REALLY scares me, because no matter what rules and laws we have on the books, the criminals WILL still have access to guns, no matter what. They will have all the guns, and the good, honest, law-abiding citizens will not, and will therefore not have any means of protecting themselves. Ask any cop, anywhere in the world. If you want a gun bad enough, if you have enough CASH, you can come home with any type of gun of your choice within in a matter of minutes, from anywhere, with no background checks at all. If the particular type of gun is not available at that time, you will be given a date to come back, the price will be upped, and once again, you will be able to come home with any type of gun you want. The criminals are not going to be stopped by the rules, regulations and laws. The only people who are going to be stopped from buying guns are the ones who are buying them for protection. Guns are something to be respected, not feared. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people, and they will continue to do so by any means available to them if they want to kill someone bad enough.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Exactly Jeanne. I think people often forget that laws are aimed specifically at the law abiding. Criminals don’t abide by the law.

              1. They don’t; never have and never will either. So having extra laws and regulations on the books is not going to do anything to deter them from breaking the law further than they already are.

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  Well, new laws will ultimately turn law abiding citizens into criminals with the swipe of a pen. We are not the body that should be regulated into law abiding compliance. I believe it is the government and those in the government that are way past due to be regulated into compliance.

            2. bottomlesscoffee007

              I hope you do purchase a gun for your home Jeanne. If I were you, I would be considering purchasing sooner rather than later. Look no further back than the gubernatorial elections last year, 2018. Some states took months to finally declare a winner. The 2020 election will be a nightmare deciding the victor.

              Get what you can, while you still can.

              Also, guns are cheaper today than they were back in 2016.

          1. I watched about half of that. One thing that I’ve noticed is that Youtube is full of people like that. But Twitter is full of liberals. Twitter gets more media coverage , by far. Interesting. We who love freedom must stick together , regardless of the minor differences! We must get our voice out there, band together.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              You know PK, something I’ve been thinking about lately. You bring up YouTube vs Twitter. I think the silent majority is still in full swing. Regardless of what we see or do not see on any social media platform. With all the censorship happening lately, that alone shows that we are winning. They are afraid, they realize they are losing control over us. Censorship is a sure sign that you are winning.

                1. Marleen

                  bottomlesscoffee007 said:
                  I think eventually we will have to decide what is worth losing to outlaw abortion.

                  pkadams responded:
                  Really ? ….

                  Me, Marleen, commenting:

                  Being in favor of paid health insurance covering childbirth (and contraception) and pre-existing conditions (such as sick or needy babies) was evidently asking too much to even start. Being against kidnapping children has proven to be too steep of a price to function as moral people as well. Being pro-life [legally, not personally] or anti-abortion is mostly just an issue, not a true value. In this generation, at least.



                  The only exceptions in the bill are for cases in which the pregnancy poses a health risk to the pregnant person. The measure now moves to the desk of Gov. Kay Ivey (R), who has not indicated whether or not she will sign it into law. Democrats also sought to include an amendment that would have made it a felony for a man to receive a vasectomy, but the proposal failed. “This bill isn’t about life or pro-life,” said Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison (D) on the Senate floor Tuesday. “This bill is about control… ……



                  New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also hit out at the bill on Wednesday morning, noting in a tweet that, “of course,” the measure included “no added punishments for rapists.”

                  Under Alabama law, rape in the first degree is considered a Class A felony with a punishment of “no less than 10 years and no more than life or 99 years,” meaning that doctors could potentially serve up to the same amount of time as offenders.

                  However, rape in the second degree is considered a Class B felony, punishable by 20 years or less, meaning that if a rapist were to be found guilty of second-degree rape, the maximum sentence would be nearly 80 years less than the maximum sentence imposed on doctors who have carried out an abortion, including in cases involving the rape of a child.

                  Whereas first-degree rape includes sexual intercourse with a minor younger than 12 years old and of the opposite sex of the defendant, when the defendant is at least 16 years old, second-degree rape applies to sexual intercourse with a minor between the ages of 12 and 15 when the defendant is at least 16 years old and at least two years older than the victim.





                  Although [a] bill [whereby both doctors and women who had abortions would be charged with criminal homicide punishable by death] was killed in committee, Diaz-Tello says that this extremist stance is becoming increasingly common among anti-choice activists, as evidenced by the fact that it made it to a committee hearing in the first place. “This aggressively anti-woman and pregnancy strand of anti-abortion advocacy that says they’re tired of an incrementalist approach to ending abortion and want to use the criminal laws…we’re definitely seeing [that] more,” Diaz-Tello says. And it’s important to note that the authors of these bills are nakedly misogynistic, to the degree that there is no longer much of a pretense as to what the purpose of such legislation is. As Rep. Tony Tinderholt, the author of the failed Texas bill, openly admitted, the purpose of the bill was not to protect the sanctity of life, but to encourage women to “consider the repercussions of the sexual relationship that they’re gonna have.”


                    1. Marleen

                      Jesus speaking of “this generation” had to do with those who were currently making the biggest impact on society (I don’t necessarily mean to suggest measuring what is biggest or the most in terms of politics but to think of what makes a real difference). He called those who went after women and poor and sick people while letting men off the hook and nearly worshiping the rich and well-to-do and therefore most free hypocrites. We, these days, often mean the youngest people (say the kids just graduating from high school or in high school or just starting their careers or not quite launching or still needing some help) when the words “this generation” are used. But Jesus was judging the religious power-brokers [and not, hard as it is to resist, poor pregnant girls].

                      It was a deeply disappointing moral failure when everyone I had ever known or who I met and all the organizations that had driven conservatism for decades would complain that the ACA covered childbirth. That was… if you didn’t first buy their lie that it was dishing out abortions. How did they not think through that their two objections were in conflict? And why did they not bother to know what was really going on? The ACA came from a conservative think tank that had put forth conservative and libertarian talking points and policy for such a long time that anybody who knew anything (in that camp) would respect their efforts. Matthew 11:16 “But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other children…”

                    2. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Marleen, its always easy to look outward and blame others, always justifying one’s actions, but never granting that same justification to those whom you disagree with. Sure, Jesus helped people, regardless of their status, but at the same time, he did not make money or charge for his services. If we are to compare health care to what Jesus did, we will always fall short. Health care is about money plain and simple. If you cannot maintain your own health, why should I pay the penalty for your life choices?

                      Health care only becomes a human right when profits are to be made. I should not be expected to pay for or cover the expenses of others, just as I do not expect others to pay for my choices.

                      The same people who are whining about free health care are the same people that want to completely disarm American citizens. Look no farther than the EU and Great Britain to see that getting rid of firearms does not curb violence, death, rape, murder or pandemonium as a whole. London continues to be one of the most dangerous cities in the world, 1st world down to 3rd world. Muslims were able to murder 129 people in Paris on one night in 2015, regardless of health care and regardless of firearms restrictions.

                      So, I say to you Marleen, who is ultimately responsible for your life? If I am to subsidize the lives of others, then I demand a seat at the table to discuss other women’s wombs and what they are allowed and what they are not allowed to do with them.

                      We are either free or we are not. Taxes equal a say, regardless of sex, regardless of status, regardless of anything and everything. You want the government out of your womb, live a life that restricts the government from making your choices for you. If you want the entire American population in your womb and deciding what to do with your womb, and what is allowed to happen with your womb, continue to live the life that requires the contents of everyone’s wallet. Until then, quit with the adolescent ideology that for some reason you are owed something.

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      If you are in dire need of someone else’s protection then the level protection you shall receive is whatever they are willing to offer, not the protections you demand. You do not get to dictate what others will give you or grant you simply because you are a woman. If you cannot choose your own path, of your own volition and of your own funds, then you are an invalid. Either take control of your own life, or become a slave to the desires of others.

                      Are women weak, do they constantly require a “white knight” to come to their rescue? If so, perhaps they are the weaker sex.

        2. I am with you PK Adams. The legality of abortion will always be available in some form or another. I too am more concerned about the losses of our freedoms and rights. I am also concerned about our safety sovriengty as a nation.

          1. bottomlesscoffee007

            Yeah, both of you could be right. That’s why I asked, I wanted to know what others were thinking.

  3. Marleen

    You’re pretty clueless, aren’t you? I take that back. You once in a while get a clue, but then you lose the thread. If you’re going to claim to value Jesus, you ought to spend a great deal of time reading what he said and praying to understand (not just popping off). I’ve never needed anything from the government, as an adult. Other than the fact we all operate under the laws and court systems. That’s not a bad thing unless you prefer a place like Somalia say twenty years ago. As a child, my parents did choose that four of my school years [only four of the fourteen or so — I think it was only two years I spent in a Presbyterian nursery school, and then I skipped kindergarten] would be spent in a public school. I don’t pretend that the experience isn’t part of me. I also do think it is good for the general populace to know how to read and understand basic math… so I’m in favor of public school even if I preferred to engage in home education for my kids.

    So shoot me if you want (you never seem to care — and have outright said you don’t — that I share many of the values you make your public persona). But the ACA was an effort at reforming the private health insurance system. I know a lot of people don’t understand what insurance is; they say, “Why should I care about childbirth if I’m not a woman?” But why should anybody’s health insurance cover diabetes? I don’t have diabetes! An interest of the government is that rooking people ought not be the normal goings on within its realm. Or are you one of those people in never-never land in your head where you are basically against government? No rules. Fuck off? If someone pays for health insurance, they should dish out a bunch of co-pays and so forth and then be told too bad? The company isn’t dealing with your cancer or your pregnancy or your stupid child. Yet YOU want to tell a woman about her body and child AND deny care.

    Your “responses” to me are nonsensical; they are not in response to me.

    The movement to restrict or end abortion came before the ACA and before and in tandem with the conservative organizations to which I referred. But nevermind that those were respected organizations and thoughts so long as they were composed of and put forth by predominantly white “conservative” Christians. Once there’s a black president who had a Kenyan father in office (extremists disregarding his American mother), suddenly the same ideas are commie or irresponsible or whatever the people who have lost their minds have chosen to argue. Time to elect the man riding that dragon… and re-elect him. It makes more sense that he (Trump) was against a president (Obama) who enacted a conservative plan; he, Trump, had always been in favor of abortion before and all about being rich (even if he was incompetent and cheating people — that is, if you don’t think cheating people is competence).

    Under the ACA, the Hyde Amendment was still in place. And not only that, it was actively affirmed before the bill could be passed. But the politics of lying against your neighbor was too fun. Everyone had to go around saying Obamacare was there to make us pay for abortions. In case you don’t know, the Hyde Amendment is about NOT paying for abortion on demand with tax money. And if we want women to have babies, why don’t we want the health insurance they pay for to cover prenatal care, natal care, postnatal care, complications, hospitalization? Why is it the insurance women pay for should dish out Viagra and prostate care, etc. — all the while that (men’s care) shouldn’t be a big, giant political tirade? God forbid. Oh: you didn’t notice that? The reality is we tried to go with a private market-based fair and sensible approach. Now, we’re going to reap the whirlwind, because “conservatives” trashed that.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Just like Marleen, always blaming everyone else except for herself. You cannot formulate your own argument, so you use pseudo religion in an attempt to shame any naysayers that don’t agree with whatever your selling.

      Perhaps Marleen, you and the Pope have more in common than you wish to acknowledge.

      On another note, perhaps read the Hyde Amendment and admit that tax dollars are used for abortions.

      the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion EXCEPT to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

      So, it would appear that the Hyde Amendment does allocate tax dollars to be used for abortions, you illiterate dumb ass Marleen.

      Oh, Marleen, are you finally waking up to the fact that the world is a dangerous place, that life is not fair or just?

      But I’m sure in your mind, you can simply play the victim, especially since you are a delicate little woman who cannot be held accountable for her own actions and cannot be expected to be an adult and face your own consequences.

      Poor, poor Marleen. So innocent and fragile. Please tell me what funds you require and when you need to stand on my shoulders so you can feel superior to the rest of us.

      Poor Marleen, perhaps if your mother would’ve simply aborted you, you would not face this cruel world today.

      1. Marleen

        Why do you ignore what I actually say? Because you’re a liar (one option — the other is a lack of thinking skills). At least I now know you want women to die to have babies. Should I add your kind of nonsense? To have babies for you? You obviously have some kind of resentment concerning women — or guilt. Certainly no less than callousness.

        As for me, my choice was always that I would die rather than abort my child. During the time I was having children, I had life insurance so that my children could go to private schools if I died (home education if I was alive). But I find it inappropriate to impose that on others. You can argue for it if you want, but that’s on you.

        You can also argue for people dying in the street because not everyone can afford to pay directly for care or to pay for the insurance that might provide for their care. Conservatives used to want to be compassionate. Now they want Viagra and prostate care but nothing that contributes to what they claim to care about above all else.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          So what is stopping you Marleen, from opening your own wallet and putting your money where your mouth is? Why do you require my money?

          It’s all about money for you Marleen and it always has been about money. Quit trying to justify morals for money.

          You seem to think it is everyone else’s responsibility to finance whatever your dreams are.

          Are you really calling me sexist for having a different outlook? Wow, that is how I know you are beyond your depth Marleen. Name calling is the first sign of cowardice.

    2. bottomlesscoffee007

      Maybe you can tell me more about how I’m a bad and hypocritical Christian. Tell me Marleen how you are so holy and devout and clean without sin. Tell me Marleen, how you are such a better person than I.

      Do you ever get nose bleeds looking down your ivory tower at me?

  4. Marleen


    We’re paying posh hotel rates (posher than posh rate-wise) to for-profit concentration camps that don’t even want kids to have tooth brushes and behave as if they don’t care if they live or die or keep their pants. Yes, pants were taken away and never returned or replaced. What matters is the money-making.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Again, why should I care if it does not affect me? Tell me how this impacts my life directly.

      Do you always tell people what they are expected to spend their money on?

      Bossy much!

      1. Marleen

        You’re not making any sense. But then that’s not your goal, is it? My mistake for thinking you might actually want to engage in meaningful conversation.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Is that really your counter? You can’t argue for your own cause, so you give up and make accusations. Maybe you should stay out of adult conversations Marleen.

        1. Marleen

          That statement of mine about the image was supposed to be attached to the post with the image (the non-image where the image is supposed to be). I clicked on the “REPLY” that is attached. It didn’t work that way.

          1. Marleen

            I don’t use instagram, but this was the only other way I could find the image. Trump had his people argue in court recently that health doesn’t involve children having toothbrushes for brushing their teeth. Meanwhile, he blamed Democrats for not voting to give ever more money to his cronies.


            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Did you really send a cartoon? Wow Marleen, you’re worse off than I thought. What you sent was a drawing, a political cartoon, it is someone else’s imagination.

            2. bottomlesscoffee007

              So Marleen, what exactly are you doing as an individual to counter these accusations? Are you forking over more of your own money? Are you making donations of clothes and toiletries?

              You know Marleen, I think you don’t like trump and this is a convenient argument for you to feel as if your point of view actually matters. I get the feeling that you couldn’t care less when Obama did the same.

              1. Marleen

                Your feelings, from moment to moment, are all that count.

                It’s… like… like… the… …whole world, m-a-n.

                Insert cartoon of mind blown.

                P.S. I think it’s stupid to vote for giving more to the corporations running the concentration camps. If it isn’t already obvious that they’re in it mainly for the money, hundreds of dollars per night (near a thousand, over five hundred) per kid should really be able to cover getting them toothbrushes… and so much more. Or we should be paying less. Really, the problem is systemic… all the “privatization” of government that we’ve fallen for. They want more people in custody. (By the way, if you send donations to the sites, it will do no good. You have to go through a non-profit dedicated to the work.)

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  Hmmm, concentration camps huh? I never heard of a so called concentration camp where people walk for hundreds of miles to get to. Why not fund a non profit yourself, or perhaps pay the legal fees for one of those illegals in cages? Guess your to prim and proper to get your hands dirty.

                  1. Marleen


                    On 24 December 2018, an 8-year-old Guatemalan boy died while in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, the second time in a month that an undocumented immigrant child had perished under the same circumstances.

                    … By way of comparison, [Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen] said, before these two incidents occurred more than a decade had elapsed since a child had passed away in CBP custody.

                    Oddly, word was going around on social media at precisely the same time to the effect that no fewer than 18 migrant children had, in fact, died in the Border Patrol’s custody during the Obama administration.

                    The rumor appears to have first emerged on Christmas Day and to have gone viral on Twitter the following day. …


                    We found, moreover, that in December 2018 some high-profile partisan websites had repeated the gist {*} of the Human Rights Watch report in the wake of the recent death of a migrant child. For example, the Daily Caller ran an article on 18 December headlined “18 Deaths of ICE Detainees Acknowledged Under Obama — But Not Investigated,” and Town Hall ran a report on 27 December titled “Where Was the Media Outrage When 18 Migrants Died in Custody Under the Obama Administration?”


                    Given the lack of any other sources that could have inspired the specific claim of 18 migrant children dying on Obama’s watch, it seems most likely that the falsehood stemmed from a misconstrual (unintentional or otherwise) of news and opinion articles based on the 2016 Human Rights Watch report.

                    {* Construing misinformation and a response to the deaths of children as “the gist” (which I’d call a misuse of the word gist, but roughly defensible in some minds, is how this rumor got a “mostly” false rating rather than simply completely false. Ten years before December 2018 is before Obama was in office. Oh, and I didn’t write this Snopes review, 007. Nor did you originate the false rumor or even the partly false rumor — as far as I know… that is unless you want to claim it — so we can skip the stupid criticisms about original content, or put the cap on your own head.}

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Marleen, have you ever been to war? Have you ever been to combat? You can cite whatever you want, you can proclaim whatever you want. But until you are prepared to lay down your own life, until you are prepared to send your own children to battle.

                      Think about the true cost of war. War is always justified with “human rights” violations.

                      Talk is cheap Marleen. Go forth and do that which you think everyone else should be doing in your stead.

                      Lead from the front Marleen, be the example and show the rest of us the right answer.

                      Until then, keep on blowing hot air.

                    2. Marleen

                      Yeah! Who gives a shit about facts, right fella? The only thing in life that matters is going to war or slinging a gun in some fashion. All the other things you bring up eventually get reduced to that. I’m not going to answer your accusation as to whether I, or any of my children, signed up for that either.

                      Nevertheless, I appreciate if you served… and I’m sorry if it was traumatic (which it most likely was).

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Just stop talking about it and do something about it if it bothers you that bad Marleen. That’s all I’m saying. Quit trying to rub it in everyone’s faces.

                    4. Marleen

                      I was responding to something you said in your comments section as well as the subject of the heading — both. I don’t know how that’s an invitation to not talk about it/them (or an example of not wanting to talk about it/them either). Discussing and being aware is partly how we try and have good laws, or the most practical we can get. And to make reforms when we notice.

                    5. Marleen

                      It is difficult work to get laws right. And, in some ways, it can be said to be nearly impossible… impossible (not only nearly) to set up something perfect. It makes no sense to have no laws, though. Nor to enforce a wild-wild west mentality of chaos, or one more like the dark ages. Nor to assume non-governmental corporations are better than government of-by-and-for the people. Nor to assume religious organizations are best, or counting on the charity of individuals or private companies. (Nothing wrong with individuals helping if they/we really help. But vulnerable people are vulnerable.) It can be annoying to have to update and tweak and so forth, but it’s really all we can do.

                      There have been times in our history that we have done more than tweak. Sometimes we have to take a hard look. Maybe it would feel less offensive to consider a story that isn’t about Americans. These kinds of things are either tolerated in society (or even promoted) or outlawed. You might be too young to remember when women or females weren’t allowed to do certain (many, many) things or to own or decide on anything or inherit, etc. [In my lifetime, many men didn’t allow their wives to even drive — usually older men — in the USA. You may say a woman shouldn’t have put up with it. But the laws were such that she didn’t have much say-so or economic access.]

                      Contraceptives have at times been outlawed, while men having sex weren’t. Women or daughters can be considered burdens because they carry the evidence and visible responsibility of what in the reality takes two sexes (while the women or girls don’t have to be willing participants but sometimes are/were). I’ve heard people make jokes about such things, like oppression is not real (in individual case-by-case circumstances as well as in mass). Sometimes such scoffers just don’t know what they’re talking about; sometimes they really don’t care.

                      I happened to come across this history today as I was listening to Joni Mitchell (because of a different Joni song on Fandango’s this/that/the-other website):


                      Joni Mitchell – The Magdalene Laundries (Live Toronto 1994)
                      {This (above) is the shortest video I’m including. The next one (below) is more detailed and official.}


                      Magdalene Laundries: Our World, BBC News Channel 27-09-14
                      {I have one comment on this account. Biblically, taking an apple shouldn’t be considered stealing. We don’t live biblically, but if we did there would be places to get apples and so forth for free. I don’t mean in heaven; I mean it was the law.}


                      Joni Mitchell on Q – Part 2
                      {This one is kinda long and may seem less relevant, maybe rambling in the style of an entertainment interview. I’m including it because she speaks of how full all the orphanage and pregnant girl types of homes and foster homes were in the sixties in the U.S. Also, I agree with her attitude on “the sexual revolution” while I didn’t learn the hard way but had to deal with people who want you to learn the hard way. I was born in the sixties, so she’s not my generation. I also notice that she’s basically differentiating herself from Stevie Nicks and that strain of feminism, without naming that famous story, in that Joni did not give up motherhood or pregnancy for career.}

                      There’s an instance of a teenager in custody at the border who was raped and wanted an abortion, which is legal in this country and which she was going to pay for herself and for which she set up the appointment herself and had arranged for transportation herself. She was detained and blocked from following through at the same time that certain activists complain about later abortions because of proposed fetal pain and other reasons. Once that baby is born [were that to eventuate] there is another near thousand dollars a day for the corporation being paid (!by us!) to hold all these people… or… I wonder how they’re doing the counting. They might be looking at losing money if there’s an abortion. Meanwhile (despite plenty of money per person), it’s been hard to get diapers or toothbrushes… or wipes, or running water or any water… or…

                    6. bottomlesscoffee007

                      There are many that would say we were safer 30 years ago than what we are today. Laws are arbitrary because they are not black and white, they are interpreted and translated on a case by case basis. There have been laws against theft, rape and murder in all societies since the dawn of time.

                      Not a single law has ever stopped that illegal activity from taking place.

                      Laws only work on the law abiding.

                      Have laws against spousal abuse ever stopped spousal abuse? Have laws ever stopped discrimination? Have any drug laws ever kept people from doing or trafficking in drugs?

                      Again, laws do not work, the only thing that laws do is make the law abiding more susceptible to either being accosted or with the swipe of a pen and with all new laws, they simply turn the law abiding into a criminal via grammar and interpretation.

                      Laws create limitations on peaceful people.

                      If laws worked, then why is the prison population overflowing?

                      If laws worked, then why the constant need for new laws?

                      Laws are and always will be arbitrary Marleen.

                      Laws allow others to judge and prosecute people after the fact, unfairly and unjustly.

                      Societies need laws, to justify the society. Societies sacrifice law abiding citizens in order to prop up and give the appearance of safety and justice.

                    7. bottomlesscoffee007

                      The world has more true anarchy in it today than it did 50 years ago, even though the law books have vastly expanded.

                      Laws take the choice away from people and corral them.

                      The goal of any law is to promote good order and discipline. Rather than actually follow the law, the law makers and the law enforcers are above the law.

                      We are cattle in the eyes of the legislators and the regulators and they lead us to our slaughter with the laws they create and fund with our tax dollars.

                    8. Marleen

                      I understand what you mean, but it does matter that laws have changed so that a woman can leave an abusive husband. It’s still difficult if he is controlling (of course common with abusers), but the law isn’t set up fully against her (as it pretty much was in the past). And abuse does decline (even if there are still cases) — because there are numbers of people who will be violent or otherwise abusive with women of it’s okay with society or the law… who will not do such things if it’s against the law or she has a way out.

                    9. bottomlesscoffee007

                      In my opinion Marleen, that is where the community or the family step in. I understand what your getting at, but in my mind, I feel as if the law concerning women and men and domestic abuse both ways almost allows more harm to come to either one. I would be more fearful of my father-in-law than I would be of the law, for the simple fact that a loved one is more apt to ensure it never happens again and that swift punishment follows if it does.

                      Women against men and men against women. This is how it is portrayed time and time again. One group against another group. When in fact that portrayal is very misleading.

                      Believe it or not, there were women in those times who did not want the right to vote, or the right to equality. For the simple fact that with those rights came certain responsibilities and obligations.

                      You see Marleen, people don’t want equality, they want superiority.

                      The law prevents a family member from stepping in and handling an abusive spouse. The offender knows he will be dealt with fairly, unlike how he or she treated their spouse.

                      I see where your coming from and I don’t have all the answers. But maybe it’s somewhere in between.

                    10. Marleen

                      If that was more how things worked, I’d probably be with you on that. I don’t think it’s mostly how things were. Sad 😢

                      That — what I just said — concerns most of what you said in your post. Now I’m going to quote this part to disagree a bit… and agree. Some women just want an equal opportunity to be a jerk. And to some degree, if everybody wants to be superior, why should women/girls be automatically hobbled?

                      You see Marleen, people don’t want equality, they want superiority.

                      But I think most women just want to be able to really live and not be disregarded and controlled and so on. I certainly know that was my point of view… is. I mean, I was freakin’ naive because my dad was a good person and I had no resentments or suspicions about a man I would marry. I was always not a feminist, but that didn’t really go well. That is what I had to learn the hard way. My mother said she wasn’t a feminist, but she was a misogynistic opportunist. She was really a feminist, and a liar. But not all feminists are like that. She was toxic (still is, but she’s a nice little old church lady [I’m betting she’s having an affair with a priest and that’s why she’s become Catholic — and harasses be about becoming Catholic]).

                      So, even in my acceptance of feminism (of not all types), I know that not all women are allies.

                    11. bottomlesscoffee007

                      You act accordingly, you get treated accordingly. Instead of waiting for a hand out, simply act the way you want people to treat you.

                      Even during the suffragette movement, there were different classes of women and their “abilities” were often dictated by by their status. Believe it or not, the same is true for men, at that time and today.

                    12. bottomlesscoffee007

                      It’s easy from the outside looking in to label men as the bad people or the offenders. But usually it’s the financiers of the current atmosphere that establish the ideologies. Look at how many corporations jumped on the toxic masculinity thing, look at how many corporations jumped all over the gay pride thing.

                      The movements are always about money and powerful for the same people throughout history.

                    13. Marleen

                      Christians were using the boycotting money thing against gay people. Then they got mad when the tables turned.

                    14. Marleen

                      Sorry… it’s a historical fact. You probably weren’t there. I’ve witnessed it. Conservative organizations who drove the ordained choices for which they said Christians or moral people should vote (starting with Reagan, always Republicans… which maybe would’ve been better if they weren’t driving the primaries too) also campaigned to boycott this that and the other thing — television shows, video games, gay people. Of course, a person has a right not to watch certain shows, etc. But we can’t act surprised (or genuinely be surprised) when the shoe is on the other foot.

                    15. bottomlesscoffee007

                      The problem with that type of outlook is, is that it takes all the nuance out of your opponents. I can understand that it is easy to say “these people are good and those people are bad” but it’s so much deeper than that.

                      That type of attitude perpetuates the ideology.

                      If you can’t see yourself in your enemy, then you will never understand how people can act in such a manner. Blanket labeling the “other” is how we got here in the first place.

                      Seriously Marleen, have you ever listened to any of my podcasts? I think your attributing a tone to me that is just not accurate.


                    16. Marleen

                      Back from going to an Ethiopian place (food and nice people). Had to find a new establishment as the near one is closed for the upcoming celebration. My middle son is going back to New Zealand a few days after the fourth, and that’s one of our favorite cuisines (and apparently not present where he’s iving).

                      About “tone.” I wasn’t attributing tone to you on the latest detail. And I sure wasn’t trying to imply that there is some reason to always attribute bad things to men — as was part of your paragraph but not part of what I said in response. I thought I was saying something you could generally see the point in. (It is the case, though, that you often come across with a different tone in your writing than you have on your podcasts. Not at that time, however. I haven’t listened to a podcast today — the one you linked to or any other — but I get what you mean.)

                      About “blanket labeling of the other” and saying “these people are good and those people are bad.” I wasn’t trying to do that. I agree “it’s so much deeper than that.” But it can be funny, because someone will say that and then have their own hangups anyway. An example [again, to stay away from the hotbuttons you think I have or I might think you have] is tippy-top Democrats{*}. They’ll say we should have unity. But then a few of them will get together (leaving others out) with a bunch of their closest donors and plan to run their more progressive opponents (people with plans to reform more than plans to get rich) out of town or out of the primary season. [Not so unified.]

                      {* I could say things about tippy-top Republicans; my meaning isn’t about sides in the usual sense.}

                      I can see myself among what you call “the enemy.” Consider that people like my mother and people like me — and probably people nothing like either of us — were simultaneously in “conservative” settings while I was growing up. And I continued in conservative circles, but then not the kind she was in (so, I was clearly on the wrong path… lol). I can also still see how I always saw but with a wider lense. And I don’t think it’s necessary to remain naive [on a spectrum edging toward foolish… that isn’t a statement about men, by the way]. So, the thing is, I do understand.

                      Now, this I will ask about… as I might not understand: “The movements are always about money and powerful for the same people throughout history.” Since I’ve already indicated I am aware a lot of things going on are for money and about power, my question pertains to “the same people throughout… ”

                      I have one other subject area to respond to or ask about, but maybe later.

                      Have a nice Fourth of July.

  5. Are migrants settling in Europe and America as a way to colonize a new land for their people and their ways? I think MOST of the people coming from other countries are coming to the USA for as much free stuff as they can get. They more we “offer” the more people will come, and the problem will continue to escalate. it is already out of control, and will only get worse if we continue down the path we are on. Legal, or illegal, we CANNOT support all the people coming here. But given the choice, I want people here who want to be here; who want to assimilate into our culture; who have something positive to offer rather than be a constant drain. Every country in the world has immigration laws, and those laws are in place for the same reasons. NO country in he world can support millions upon millions of people coming into that country on an annual basis. there are simply not enough resources, plus it will change the whole dynamic of that country permanently.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      I think sanctuary cities perfectly embody and exemplify the argument Jeanne. It’s all about money and power. They want illegals to vote in their elections, so the party in power, remains in power.

      1. YEP! Sanctuary cities are illegal and are wrong! I grew up in the LA area of SO CAl, and the illegal problem was big then, but it has grown exponentially since then and its only going to get worse. LA, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. all the liberal sanctuary cities are a disaster. I don;t EVER want to go to any of them ever again if they continue down the path they are going.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Once any party rules without question, left or right, the balance is lost, thereby the citizens are of no consequence any longer.

          1. Sad, but very true. And yet, we’ve become so polarized, and people seem to think one side it all good and the other side is all evil. We need fair representation from both sides, but that’s not happening any more.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Nope, they threw the baby out with the bath water. No its all or nothing, or nothing at all. Psychos are running the parties.

Leave a Reply to Marleen Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.