Walls Are for Losers

Tech Central Station ^ | 08 Nov 2006

[sgtyork]

Good to hear on both points. They definitely belong in MA working for brilliant peopul like Jon Carry.

[slaymakerpowertape]

"In other words their wall worked for over 250 years, which longer than the existence of the United States? Sounds good to me?"

Most of the Ming-era Great Wall was constructed after Altan Khan's siege of Beijing in 1550.

[Obie Wan]

Actually taking this article seriously is for LOSERS !!!

[VeniVidiVici]

by achieving a major civil rights advance.

Really? What? How is this a "civil rights advance"?

[ruination]

The “Prop 187 gave California to the dems” lie appears again. The truth is that California was solidly Democrat long before Prop 187 was even written. The state senate has had a Democrat majority – and an often overwhelming one – for every single term since 1970. The same goes for the Assembly, except for one term ('95-'96, the term FOLLOWING passage of Prop 187) in which the Republicans held a 44-41 majority. Our representation in Congress has mirrored this.

[rmlew]

And it was not circumvented by resources but be treason.

[lepton]

This is daft.

Also, there's a distinct difference in purpose between the wall types. The examples are fortifications. The southern fence is just to severely inconvenience them, or slow them down so they can be spotted.

...And the Democrats have been crowing for months about taking both houses.

[onedoug]

Is the writer anti-Semitic too?

[JB3]

The immigration decision should be in the hands of the immigrant. ???!!!

Using this logic, I can "migrate" anywhere else in the world from Mexico to Canada to Australia to Sweden.

Why is there such a demand for the US to surrender when no one else does? Just try "migrating" anywhere else in the world and see how long you last before you are either in prison or deported. And which party is actually FOR the fence and against amnesty? Since the amnesty plan was a coalition of Bush, McCain, Kennedy, and Clinton I have a hard time figuring out which side I'm on on this issue.

[Uncle Billy]

the author is high

[slaymakerpowertape]

Not that simple. After 1560, the Ming basically gave up on trying to fight the Mongols (offensively, at least) and put their resources into a giant construction project. By this time they were already in decline. The beginning of the Ming Cataclysm is usually dated to 1600 - the government basically imploded. Eventually, the army mutinied and joined the other side. When the Mongols finally broke through the Great Wall, it didn't matter anymore because they had already taken Beijing; despite the big wall. Perhaps the Ming could have lasted a bit longer in strongholds in the South if different pretenders hadn't been so busy fighting each other as well as the Mongols. The last of these were wiped out in 1662.

[rmlew]

It seems then that the wall was irrelevant.

[Smokin' Joe]

Well, my dander was up already when I read the title, because I thought the author was referring to The Wall, on the Mall in D.C. But consider the following. The Great Wall of China was effective until someone opened the gates. The Germans did not defeat the Maginot line, they went around the darned thing. The Berlin wall was built to keep people in not out. Build the entire wall, not just short sections, and man the battlements. That is not anti-immigration, people can still immigrate, they just must do so legally. It amazes me that such a large contingent is stumping with contempt for the violation of our laws to facillitate the invasion of a foreign power. But then, they are absolutely ruthless about retaining their winnings.

[rmlew]

Don't use logic. Thje Open Borders Jihad is all about emotion.

[slaymakerpowertape]

It's hard to imagine the kind of massive corvee labor that went into building the Great Wall. Thousands upon thousands died building it. They could have been doing other things. But it is easy to say that now.

Just to be clear, when I referred to "Mongols" I meant the people now known as the Manchus. In the 16th century, the Manchus weren't regarded by the Chinese as being distinct from other Tungusic speaking peoples from the steppes. After the conquest, they were pretty much assimilated by the Chinese over the centuries.

[rmlew]

The Chinese Duynasties, or at least the Emperors of surviving ones, damn well knew the difference between different Steppe Peoples. They played the Yuan Yuan against the Manchus, the Tatars and the Mongols, and the Uighurs against the Western Turks (Onoghurs, Oghuzz...).

[Toby06]

I wonder if this asshat ever served and had to hold a defensive position like all of America is in now.

[Ruth C]

Using that kind of logic, the criminal should be able to make the decision on whether he is allowed to commit crimes, politicians shouldn't have to be elected, they should just decide whether or not they will keep the job each year... lol

[cowdog77]

Wall, we don't need no wall!

Actually all we need is a nice clear line drawn in the dirt. Cross it and you're shot. All the PC hooplah will die down and problem resolved in about 2 weeks.

[lonewacko_dot_com]

This is the permalink: tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110806E

The author's bio is just a list of his articles, but I found a Nathan Smith identified as with the World Bank here:

independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1727

And, a person with that same name leaves a comment here:

econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/06/privatization_i.html

He doesn't give a link by his name, but it seems to indicate that a) that NS is/was with the World Bank, and b) that NS is familiar with blogs.

It's such a common name, but I'm leaning towards the strong possibility that the author of this piece is with the World Bank.

Note also that the article accepts comments, but you need to sign up for free first. There are already dozens of comments, but for future reference those leaving comments here might want to leave comments there too.